14

Click here to load reader

Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery,and Professional Development

Jennifer H. Herman

Published online: 4 December 2012# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Abstract This quantitative study investigated the types and frequency of incentives foronline instruction at non-profit institutions of higher education with an established teachingand learning development unit. While up to 70 % of institutions offer incentives, this supportis not universal and varies by incentive type and purpose.

Keywords Online education . Faculty development . Incentives . Technology . Faculty

The growth of online education programs is one of the most pressing and rapidly changing issuesfaced by faculty and administrators in higher education. With pressure because of decliningbudgets, increased competition for recruiting high school seniors, and rising costs, many institu-tions turn to online instruction as a way to recruit and retain students (Allen and Seaman 2009).The result of these factors can be seen in the exponential growth of online education over the lastseveral years: in fall 2009, 5.6 million students were enrolled in an online course, an increase ofnearly one million students from the previous year. The growth in online enrollments is nowoutpacing the growth of traditional enrollments (Allen and Seaman 2011, p.2).

Despite the allure of online education, it is far from a panacea: many institutions discoverthat the systematic development of online instruction can be an expensive and work-intensive process. One of the barriers to the development or expansion of online educationis faculty resistance. Faculty members who have never taught online before are more likelyto perceive online instruction as inferior for student learning (Appana 2008), and they tend tobe more resistant to designing or teaching online courses. Additionally, faculty members arefrustrated with incentives available for online instruction: 70 % of faculty members de-scribed their institution’s support for online instruction as average or below (Seaman 2009,p. 34), and nearly 20 % of all institutions do not offer any support to faculty teaching online(Allen and Seaman 2010, p. 3). The more than one-third of faculty members who havedeveloped or taught an online course (Seaman 2009, p. 12) feel that the lack of incentives is

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410DOI 10.1007/s10755-012-9248-6

Jennifer H. Herman serves as Director of Instructional Support at Niagara University. She received her Ph.D.in Higher Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo and her M.A.in International Trainingand Education from American University. In addition to curriculum design, her research interests includefaculty development and online instruction. She can be contacted at [email protected].

J. H. Herman (*)Instructional Support, Niagara University, 108 St. Vincent’s Hall, Niagara University, NY 14109, USAe-mail: [email protected]

Page 2: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

a major barrier to online instruction (Berge and Muilenburg 2000, p. 4). Because onlineeducation is becoming increasingly central in higher education and because institutions arecompelled by accrediting bodies to offer some form of support to the faculty (Middle States2002), this lack of adequate faculty support is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The purpose of this research study was to provide benchmarking data on the types andfrequency of incentives offered to faculty members transitioning to online course design anddelivery at non-profit higher education institutions in the United States with an establishedand active teaching and learning development unit. While the literature suggests that facultymembers perceive a lack of institutional support for online instruction, there is a lack ofresearch on the actual types and extent of incentives being offered to faculty. There are manycase studies describing the practices at a single institution (Hinson and LaPrairie 2005;Kinuthia 2005; Koehler et al. 2004; Morrow 2003; Wells 2007). There is also a study of8,500 faculty members and chief academic officers that asked about what incentives foronline instruction they would find motivating (Allen and Seaman 2008, p. 17), but there arenot yet data about the types of incentives actually being offered.

This study investigated the use of five types of incentives offered to faculty members for eachof four different activities: designing an online course, teaching an online course, completing afaculty development program for online instruction requiring fewer than eight hours of the facultymember’s time, and completing a faculty development program for online instruction requiringeight or more hours of the faculty member’s time. For this study, incentives were defined ascompensation or benefits above and beyond the salary and benefits that faculty members receiveas part of their contractual agreements with the institution. The five incentives were:

(1) Recognition in tenure and promotion: any institutional policy or practice that providesadditional benefits for faculty members during the tenure and/or promotion processbecause of their participation in designing or teaching an online course or participatingin a faculty development program.

(2) Additional financial remuneration: stipend, honorarium, or any financial payment thatis not part of the faculty member’s salary.

(3) Course releases or other time incentives: any institutional policy or practice thatprovides faculty members with more time by reducing their workload, such as coursereleases, release from committee work, or other service obligations

(4) Technology reward: e.g., laptops, ipads, iphones, software, or the benefit of upgraded oradditional loaned university equipment that the facultymemberwould not otherwise receive.

(5) Retention of intellectual property rights for an online course: an institution grantingadditional ownership or rights over intellectual property to a faculty member

These extrinsic incentives, which are provided directly and deliberately through institu-tional support, were selected based on a review of the literature citing common incentives formotivating faculty members (Allen and Seaman 2008; Berge and Muilenburg 2000; Fish andWickersham 2009; Seaman 2009; Fish and Wickersham 2009). Intrinsic incentives, such aspersonal satisfaction, were not included in the study.

Review of the Literature

Faculty Members and Online Education

Faculty members are involved in online course development and delivery in surprisinglyhigh numbers. According to a nationwide survey of 10,720 full (85 %) and part-time (15 %)

398 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 3: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

faculty members from 69 different institutions (50,000 surveys were distributed), 34.4 % ofthe faculty members surveyed have developed or taught an online course (Seaman 2009, p.12), 9.3 % were working on developing an online course, and 23.6 % were teaching anonline course at the time of the survey (p. 5).

Faculty opinions about the effectiveness of online instruction vary, depending on theirprevious experience with online education. The majority of those with online teachingexperience perceive the instruction as equally or more effective than face-to-face classes(Seaman 2009, p. 7). However, from among those who have never taught online, 80 % thinkthat online instruction produces lower learning outcomes when compared to traditionalcourses (Allen and Seaman 2010; Appana 2008). Because two-thirds of faculty membersdo not have online teaching experience, the majority of faculty members in the United Stateshave a negative perception of online instruction. Many institutions cite this lack of buy-infrom faculty members to be a major barrier to the overall growth of their online programs(Allen and Seaman 2010, p. 21). Additionally, 64 % of faculty members perceive teachingonline courses as more work; and 85 % perceive developing online courses as more workthan traditional courses (Seaman 2009, p. 26). Research supports the faculty perception thatthe amount of work required for the design and preparation of an online course is substan-tially greater than the amount of work needed to prepare a traditional course (Berge 1998;Chou and Tsai 2002; Fish and Wickersham 2009; Harrison and Bergen 2000; Ouellett 2010).Faculty members perceive this additional effort, in both design and delivery, as the greatestbarrier to becoming involved in online instruction (Berge and Muilenburg 2000; Koehler etal. 2004, p. 28; Seaman 2009, p. 7).

Support for Faculty: Fink’s Model

Because of the increasing demand, institutions have incorporated expanding online courseofferings into their long-term strategic plans (Allen and Seaman 2010, p. 2). If the institu-tion’s goals include both online course expansion and maintenance of a high qualityeducational experience, then the institution may consider offering incentives to en-courage faculty participation. The positive perception of increased support for thefaculty as well as increased faculty experience with online education (Seaman 2009,p. 7) may help institutions overcome the barrier of faculty resistance and enable themto meet their goals.

In Creating Significant Learning Experiences (2003), L. D. Fink argued that institutionsof higher education “need to give serious attention to their role in supporting faculty change”because it is the faculty members who are in charge of designing and delivering courses andcurricula and of maintaining and improving the quality of educational programs (p. 196).Fink explained that six critical conditions need to be met in order to overcome barriers tofaculty growth: awareness, encouragement, time, resources, cooperative students, and rec-ognition and reward. This study focused on the last of Fink’s six critical conditions forfaculty growth, which can be directly influenced by changes in institutional policies:recognition and reward for faculty members’ efforts to improve their teaching.

The study focused on the institution’s use of incentives for faculty members who aredesigning or teaching an online course and who are participating in faculty developmentprograms for online instruction. Fink explained that reward programs are too often limited torecognition of just a few stellar individuals and that “institutions need to recognize andreward all faculty members who strive for and achieve excellence in teaching” (p. 237). Hesuggested that success should be “recognized and rewarded promptly, with an appropriatetitle and, if possible, a financial award” (p. 237).

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 399

Page 4: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Institutional Incentives

Growth in demand together with faculty inexperience and resistance have created the needfor incentives. In fact, institutions are compelled by accrediting agencies to provide facultysupport for online instruction. The eight accrediting commissions have developed BestPractices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, a statement of bestpractices (Middle States Commission on Higher Education 2002, pp. viii-ix). This statementincludes guidelines for institutional support of faculty members teaching online; institutionsmust address faculty “issues of workload, compensation, ownership of intellectual propertyresulting from the program, and the implications of program participation for the facultymember’s professional evaluation processes” (p. 12). Fish and Wickersham (2009) notedthat institutions must allocate funds for technical support and equipment, administrativesupport, and revenues to support incentives for professional development for faculty, such asfinancial remuneration and course release time (p. 280, 283).

Despite the need and outside pressure on institutions, the majority of faculty membersperceive incentives for both developing and delivering online courses as below average(Seaman 2009, p. 34). Moreover, 40 % of faculty members nationwide perceive theirinstitution’s policies for recognition of online instruction in tenure and promotion decisionsto be below average; 80 % also reported that policies for intellectual property rights foronline course development were average or below average. Seventy percent felt that theirinstitutions’ support overall for online course development and delivery was average orbelow (p. 34). Sixty percent felt that inadequate compensation was an important or veryimportant barrier; 45 % felt that the fact that online instruction did not count for tenure andpromotion was an important or very important barrier (Seaman 2009, p. 33). In anothernational survey of over 2,500 higher education professionals, faculty members felt that alack of compensation or incentives was the second largest barrier to online instruction – afteradditional time commitment/workload (Berge and Muilenburg 2000, p. 4). Haber and Mills(2008) also found that faculty time and compensation were the largest barriers (2008).

Ever increasing numbers of faculty members are teaching online and institutions areoffering online courses in order to provide students with flexible access to education (Allenand Seaman 2007, p. 2; Allen and Seaman 2008; Seaman 2009, p. 7). Faculty members withfive or fewer years of experience also are likely to teach online for personal and professionalgrowth. Those with fewer than twenty years of experience are more likely to be motivated byadditional income or pedagogical advantages than those with more than twenty years’experience (p. 7). Some are also pressured by their departments or institutions to teachonline although only 20 % reported that they teach online because they are required to do so(p. 32). A survey of over 8,500 faculty members at more than 60 campuses, conducted aspart of a benchmarking study of online education, asked faculty members what incentivesthey would find motivating to teach online (Allen and Seaman 2008, p. 17; Seaman 2009).Table 1 lists the percentage of faculty members and chief academic officers who labeled eachof the incentives as “very important” or “important.” It is interesting to note that chiefacademic officers, who answered the same survey questions as the faculty, answered thequestion in the “same rank order . . . with one very glaring difference—online teachingfaculty rate the motivation of additional income very low, while the chief academic officersplace it second on their list” (p. 17).

In a study of factors that “impact the success of faculty development programs for web-based instruction” at seven four-year, public Historic Black Colleges and Universities,Kinuthia (2005) found that motivating incentives for participation in professional develop-ment for online instruction included “time off from other tasks,” “receiving hardware and/or

400 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 5: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

software,” positive recognition for promotion and tenure, professional growth, and receivingstipends (p. 193–4); release time and personal motivation were the strongest factors. Peerpressure was not a motivating incentive. There are many examples of incentives being usedin practice (Hinson and LaPrairie 2005; Koehler et al. 2004; Morrow 2003; Mupinga andMaughan 2008); however, these are institutional case studies or research based on smallergroups of institutions, which do not include comprehensive data on the institutional use ofincentives.

Methodology

The purpose of the quantitative study reported here was to determine the frequency and typeof incentives for online instruction. Institutions were included in this study if they met threecriteria. First, this study was limited to institutions with an active teaching and learningdevelopment unit as defined by Kuhlenschmidt’s 2009 survey of the field (2011). Theseunits are the primary faculty development unit for the institution, and they serve the primaryfaculty of the institution rather than Teaching Assistant training only. Next, institutional type,as defined by the 2010 Carnegie classification, was limited to associates, baccalaureate,master’s, and doctoral/research institutions under the 2010 basic classification (CarnegieFoundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2010). Special focus institutions and tribalcolleges are not included in this population. Finally, the study was limited to not-for-profitinstitutions as designated by the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (NationalCenter for Education Statistics 2011).

The final population for the study consisted of 821 institutions. Among this number thereare institutions from all 50 states and the District of Colombia; 292 (35.5 %) are associate’sinstitutions, 62 (7.5 %) are baccalaureate institutions, 264 (32 %) are master’s institutions,and 203 (25 %) are doctoral institutions. As for institutional control, 620 (75.5 %) are publicinstitutions while 201 (24.5 %) are private. As for total enrollment, 179 institutions hadfewer than 5,000 FTE students, 203 had 5,000-10,000 FTE students, 348 had 10,000-50,000FTE students, and 6 had over 50,000 FTE students.

Before beginning the research, formal approval had been obtained from the researcher’sInstitutional Review Board. The first step in the administration of the survey was to find andrecord accurate email contact information for the director of each of the teaching andlearning units. This information was gathered through web-based research and phone callsto the appropriate staff members at each institution. After the contact list for respondents was

Table 1 Comparison of faculty and chief academic officers’ perceptions of whether offering incentives tofaculty for teaching online is either “Important” or “Very Important”

Type of Incentive Percentage of Faculty Percentage of Chief Academic Officers

Meeting students’ needs for flexible access 61.9 % 77.5 %

Earn additional income 26.8 % 59.9 %

Reach particular students 55.1 % 58.8 %

Personal and professional growth 31.7 % 55.3 %

“Wave of the future” 29.6 % 48.1 %

Pedagogical advantages 23.5 % 41.4 %

Requirement 20.7 % 31.5 %

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 401

Page 6: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

completed, those units without accessible contact information or with invalid contactinformation were removed from the sample. The survey was distributed via email to theremaining 782 institutions; 191 institutions responded to the survey, for a response rate ofapproximately 24 %.

Results

Percentage Offering Each Incentive Type

Institutions were asked about the types and frequency of incentives offered to facultymembers for participation in four types of activities: (1) designing an online course, (2)teaching an online course, (3) completing a faculty development program requiring less thanapproximately eight hours of the faculty member’s time, and (4) completing a facultydevelopment program requiring eight or more hours of the faculty member’s time. Table 2lists data on the percentage of institutions that reported offering the five incentive types inthe four categories of activities. The number of respondents ranged from 142–153 for eachquestion. For each incentive type, the percentage of institutions that reported offering thisincentive, as a proportion of the total number of institutions that responded to that question,is indicated.

As can be seen in Table 2, more institutions offered incentives for longer faculty develop-ment programs and designing an online course, and fewer institutions offered incentives forshorter faculty development programs and teaching an online course. Additional financialremuneration and recognition in tenure and promotion tended to be offered by more respondentinstitutions than technology rewards and retention of intellectual property rights.

These findings seem logical when compared to what is reported in the literature. Seaman(2009) found that faculty members perceive that institutional support for online course devel-opment is inadequate (p. 34). This perception makes sense if roughly half or fewer of theresponding institutions reported having offered each incentive type over the past two years.Seaman also found that 40% of faculty members perceive recognition for tenure and promotionto be below average and that 80% perceive policies for intellectual property rights were averageor below (p. 34); this is understandable if about half of institutions do not offer these asincentives. Seaman’s survey also reported that 60 % of the faculty felt that inadequatecompensation was an important barrier to the development and delivery of online instruction– not surprising if 30 % of institutions do not offer any financial incentives for online coursedevelopment and about 50% of institutions do not offer financial incentives for course delivery.About 45 % of the faculty in Seaman’s study felt that the lack of recognition in promotion and

Table 2 Percentage of respondent institutions that offer each of five incentive types to faculty for participa-tion in four categories of activities related to online course design and delivery

Activity Money Time Technology Intellectual Property T&P

Designing an online course 69.7 % 54.7 % 49.3 % 53.5 % 49.7 %

Teaching an online course 45.1 % 38.7 % 36.2 % 45.5 % 50.3 %

Participation in a faculty developmentprogram less than 8 hours

42.5 % 23.7 % 22.9 % 20.0 % 48.0 %

Participation in a faculty developmentprogram 8 hours or more

57.6 % 32.9 % 34.9 % 26.2 % 53.9 %

402 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 7: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

tenure was a barrier—not surprising since about half of the institutions did not include this as anincentive. Clearly, this study’s findings corroborate the findings of faculty perceptions inSeaman’s 2009 study.

Frequency of Incentives

In addition to whether or not the incentive was offered, the survey also asked respondents tonote how frequently their institution offered each of the five incentives for each of the fouractivities listed above, using the following definitions to inform their selections. Never: Myinstitution never offered this incentive in the last two years. Rarely: This incentive was offeredonce in the last two years. Sometimes: This incentive was offered at least twice in the last twoyears. Frequently: This incentive has been offered at least once each semester. Continuously:This incentive is available on a continuous basis. Subsequently, the data were coded as follows:Continuously (4), Frequently (3), Sometimes (2), Rarely (1), and Never (0). The meanfrequency score for each of the five incentives, for each of the four activities, is reported inTable 3. The mean frequency scores include only those respondents who indicated that theirinstitutions have offered the incentive at least once within the past two years.

For each of the four activities, retention of intellectual property rights was the most frequentlyoffered incentive. For all four activities, the most respondents reported offering this as acontinuously offered incentive. Additional financial remuneration was the secondmost frequentlyoffered incentive type. However, unlike retention of intellectual property rights, most respondentsdid not report offering this incentive on a continuous basis. Rather, for each of the four activities,the most respondents reported offering a financial incentive “sometimes” or “frequently.”

Examples of Incentives Offered

In addition to the quantitative data reported above, the survey also asked an open-endedquestion related to the use of incentives for online instruction: “For each of the incentivesthat you indicated above, please provide details below (such as the amount of money, type oftechnology, or special conditions that need to be met in order to receive the incentive).”Ninety-eight respondents provided further details to explain their use of incentives for eachof the four activities included above. Their responses are reported below by incentive type.

Table 3 Mean frequency that each of five incentive types were offered to faculty for participation in fourcategories of activities related to online course design and delivery among respondent institutions offering theincentive

Activity Money Time Technology IntellectualProperty

T&P

Designing an online course 2.68 (N0106) 1.78 (N082) 1.85 (N075) 2.86 (N076) 2.08 (N074)

Teaching an online course 2.43 (N069) 1.64 (N058) 1.85 (N055) 2.77 (N065) 2.14 (N076)

Participation in a facultydevelopment programless than 8 hours

2.17 (N065) 1.39 (N036) 1.37 (N035) 2.76 (N029) 2.14 (N073)

Participation in a facultydevelopment program 8hours or more

2.38 (N087) 1.54 (N050) 1.70 (N053) 2.79 (N038) 2.18 (N082)

Frequency scores for each institution were reported as Continuously (4), Frequently (3), Sometimes (2),Rarely (1), and Never (0)

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 403

Page 8: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Additional Financial Remuneration Thirty-four of the responding institutions provideddetails on financial incentives that they provided to faculty members for course design anddelivery. These are rewards “above and beyond contracted faculty compensation (aka,regular salary, etc.),” as indicated in the survey. Table 4 lists the reported financial incentivesfor course design and delivery; the financial incentive amount, along with the requirementneeded to receive that incentive, is listed. Additionally, the number of institutions that sharedthat specific financial incentive amount and requirement is included as well.

As can be seen in Table 4, institutional practices for motivating faculty through financialremuneration vary widely. Reported amounts range from $300 to $6000; and the activitiesrequired to receive the incentive can include online course design or development, teachingan online course, developing an online course to be taught in the summer, teaching such acourse for the first time, and developing a course that must be reviewed by an internalcollege committee.

Additionally, thirty institutions reported additional information about financial remuner-ation provided for participation in a faculty development program that includes online coursedesign or teaching as a required outcome of the program. At one of these institutions, faculty

Table 4 Reported financial incentives and requirements for course design or delivery of online instruction

Institutions Financial Incentive Amount Requirement

2 “Small grant program”(unspecified)

Develop an online course to be taught in the summer

3 Unspecified amount Teach an online course

5 Unspecified amount Design an online course

1 Unspecified amount Research and course development for delivery to mobile devices

1 Unspecified amount Develop “Master Course Online Template”

1 Unspecified amount Develop online course that passes Quality Matters review

1 Unspecified amount Develop and teach a hybrid course

1 $450; $300 Develop online course; receive extra $300 the first two timescourse is taught

2 $500 Teach an online course for the first time

2 $500 Develop an online course

1 $500 Departments receive this funding for each online course taughteach semester

2 $1000 Design an online course

1 $1800 Develop an online course; must be reviewed by an internalcollege committee

3 $2000 Develop an online course

1 $2500 Develop and teach an online course

1 $3000 Design online course; requirement to work with curriculumdevelopment specialists

1 $3000 Develop an online course

1 $3500 Develop an online course and teach it for the first time

1 $1500; $2500 (respectively) Develop a hybrid or online course

1 Grants up to $4350 Develop an online course

1 $5000 Develop an online course

1 $6000 Summer development of distance learning course

34 of the 191 institutions that completed the survey responded to this question

404 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 9: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

must complete 8–10 hours of professional development, in which they develop a graduate-levelonline course. After the completed course is evaluated by the “technology for learning center,”the faculty member receives a stipend. At another institution, faculty members participating inthe eLearning Quality Instructional Program receive $2000 for completing an 8-week seminaron online course design; they receive $3000 if they also develop the course that they designed inthe program. One institution provides faculty with $3000 for a new online course design, eitherafter completing a 35-hour “camp” or after offering the course for the first time. They receiveanother $1200 if they redesign the course after three years. In order to receive this funding, theymust give their intellectual property rights to the university. Finally, at one institution, partic-ipants in a 5-day “Reboot Camp” receive a stipend of up to $2500, plus a netbook, forcompleting the training and developing and teaching a new online course.

While these programs differ in their incentive amounts and requirements, they allcombine professional development requirements with the development, teaching, and/orrevision of online courses.

A third category of financial incentives is financial remuneration for participation in afaculty development program, without the requirement of producing an online course designor teaching. These incentives simply reward participation in the professional developmentactivity. As can be seen in Table 5, the amount of the incentive, as well as the requirementsto receive the incentive, vary widely by institution. Incentive amounts range from $30-$8000. Generally, longer professional development programs have larger stipends, and someincentives are only available to part-time faculty.

Time Incentives Five respondents noted that a one-course release is awarded for participa-tion in professional development, such as a faculty learning community or a year-longprogram for junior faculty. One of these institutions offered a course release each semesterfor two years for a faculty fellowship in instructional technologies, including online learning,which included service obligations such as reporting on experiences at public events andpublication in the institution’s online journal. Two respondents described online “programdevelopment” or course development programs that include a course release for participants.Other faculty members are granted a course release for a service role: one institution grants arelease to faculty members who serve as “a content expert in the course design process.”

Technology Rewards Nineteen of the responding institutions provided additional informa-tion about technology incentives. One institution provides iPhones; another provides largermonitors and newer computers to faculty teaching online courses. In fact, ten institutionsreported providing laptops or netbooks: one institution gives “used” laptops to faculty forpersonal (home) use; another gives online instructors free “upgrades” on their work com-puters. Another institution gives faculty a new laptop of their choice after completing anonline course design seminar while yet another offers laptops for online course developmentand participation in a faculty learning community on online teaching. At one institution,faculty members who complete a ten-week hybrid course development institute receiveeither a netbook or $500 in spending credit toward other technology. Faculty teaching onlineat one institution can request funding for a laptop or camera.

Eight institutions reported providing iPads: one noted that faculty members had to completeat least 30 hours’worth of faculty development workshops in order to receive this incentive, andanother required a 47-hour professional development program. Another institution requiresparticipation in a faculty learning community on using mobile devices and a faculty learningcommunity on critical thinking in order to receive the iPad. In several cases, faculty membershad the option to choose either a new laptop or an iPad as their technology incentive.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 405

Page 10: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Many of the institutions that provide technology rewards to faculty members do sowith the expectation that they will use the technology to enhance their teaching. Oneinstitution provides iPods to those who agree to research the effectiveness of thedevices in teaching and learning and then share the research results with the campuscommunity.

Table 5 Reported financial incentives for participation in faculty development programs for onlineinstructors

Financial Incentive Amount Professional Development or Participation Requirement

Reimbursement of travel and otherexpenses

Participation in professional development related to online instruction

Unspecified amount Online instructor certification course

$50-$400 Participation “in certain Faculty Development opportunities”

$50 per one hour session (max of$350) to $250 per day

Participation in faculty development workshops

$30 per hour for up to 10 hours Professional development “classes”; compensation only for part-timefaculty

$50 per hour Any professional development attendance by adjunct faculty

$100 Daily rate for 2, 3, and 5 day workshops

$100 Day-long workshop

$150 per day Participation in workshops

$150 Participation in a year-long Faculty Learning Community

$200-$500 Faculty Learning Community

$250 Three hours of professional development

$300 Completing online training class

$400-$500 Program lasting a semester or a year

$500 + books Faculty Learning Community

$500; $250 Faculty receive $500 to peer review another faculty member’s onlinecourse. Faculty are paid $250 to have their course peer reviewed.

$500 plus “small tech grant” 20 hours in a workshop

$1000 47-hour workshop

$1000 Mandatory 17-week training for faculty who develop an online courseor who wish to teach online

$1000 1 week technology workshop

$1000 Workshop lasting 1 week or longer

$1500 Participation in a faculty learning community for course redesign

$1500 (from an outside fundingsource)

“Longer Programs”

$1500-$8000 (compensation basedon faculty rank)

6 week training session

$2000 18-month new faculty program

$2000 5-week summer course on pedagogy

$2500 Completion of “longer faculty development”

$3000 Six week online course to develop and offer online courses

$3500 Serve as a content expert in the course design process

$6000 45-hour intensive summer workshop series/program

30 of the 191 institutions that completed the survey responded to this question

406 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 11: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Retention of Intellectual Property Rights Three responding institutions noted that intellec-tual property rights for online courses are jointly owned by both the college and theinstructor(s). One institution noted that faculty members maintain the rights, with “theUniversity having the right to use.” Another noted that intellectual property rights aremaintained by the designer of the course unless the course is “designed by a department.”In all of these examples, intellectual property rights are articulated in a policy, based onunion contracts in these examples, rather than an explicit incentive for online coursecreation. One institution, however, noted that intellectual property rights were one of theincentives that faculty who develop online courses can choose: the faculty “can decidewhether to be financially remunerated for coursework created or retain their intellectualproperty rights.”

Recognition in Promotion and Tenure Eleven of the responding institutions included furtherdetails about how participation in faculty development activities for online instruction factorinto the tenure and promotion process. All eleven noted that participation in these activitiesis viewed favorably in this process. Some noted that participation in faculty development isof “minor consideration” and “may” be considered while others indicated a more formalizedprocess of recognition for participation in faculty development activities. One institutionasks faculty members to list explicitly their participation in “faculty development courses” intheir application for promotion, another awards “college service credits” for “teaching andparticipation in online professional development,” and a third awards “professional growthcredits towards step increases” for attending faculty development programs. Another notedthat “someone who takes time to become a better teacher” will receive “bonus points” in atenure review because of that institution’s emphasis on reflective teaching. Finally, oneinstitution compensates faculty members who participate in a voluntary Quality Matters peerreview process by formally recognizing their participation in professional development.

Discussion

Despite the importance of faculty development to the improvement of the quality ofeducational programs (Fink 2003, p. 196), at the 80 % of institutions that provide profes-sional development for training faculty for online course delivery (Allen and Seaman 2010)the majority of faculty members felt that they were offered inadequate incentives for thedevelopment and delivery of online courses.

Fish and Wickersham (2009) argued that institutions should allocate funds to supportincentives for professional development, such as financial remuneration and course releasetime, for faculty members teaching online. The argument for the use of incentives is oftentied to faculty inexperience with online instruction, increased workload (Allen and Seaman2008; Berge and Muilenburg 2000; Koehler et al. 2004), a lack of buy-in, a negativeperception, or resistance to online education (Allen and Seaman 2010; Appana 2008;Seaman 2009). Additionally, because part-time faculty members teach online more frequent-ly than full-time faculty members (Seaman 2009, p. 15), incentives may be more importantfor them since course design or professional development may fall outside their professionalobligations to the institution.

In Allen and Seaman’s study (2008), over 8,500 faculty members at 60 campuses wereasked what incentives they would find motivating to teaching online; they reported that themost motivating incentives were those related to meeting students’ needs for flexible accessand reaching particular students. Thus, the most motivating factors for faculty members are

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 407

Page 12: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

related to their efforts to help students, rather than an extrinsic reward from institutionalpolicy. The only external, institutionally-supported incentive on this survey was “Earnadditional income,” and only 26.8 % of faculty found this to be a “very important” or“important” incentive for teaching online. However, 59.9 % of Chief Academic Officerstaking a similar survey reported that this was an important incentive; the faculty andadministration listed the incentives in the same rank order, apart from this glaring difference.Because financial incentives are the most common incentive offered by institutions overalland because this type of incentive is the most frequently offered type among those institu-tions that offer it, some important questions arise about the use of financial incentives toencourage the faculty to design or teach online courses. Clearly, the frequency of use of thisincentive corroborates Allen & Seaman’s findings that administrators perceive this to be animportant incentive type. However, financial rewards may not be the best incentive if themajority of faculty members does not perceive them as important.

Fink’s model identifies “recognition and reward” as one of six critical conditions neededto affect change in the quality of educational programs (p. 198); this includes recognitionand rewards for efforts to improve, such as incentives for participation in faculty develop-ment programs for online instruction. Participation incentives as part of a recognition andreward structure are key to effective instructional development (p. 198). Therefore, it isimportant that the administration or faculty development unit support faculty through the useof some type of incentive, even if this external reward is used more as an institutionalrecognition of their dedication to professional growth or for their participation in onlineinstruction, rather than as a motivating factor in itself. In this case, the size of the financialreward may not be as significant as whether it exists at all. This is particularly important asrecognition and reward is one of the six critical conditions that can be most positivelyimpacted by institutional policy. Additionally, Fink argued that all faculty members shouldbe rewarded, not just a few stellar individuals, and that success should be “recognized andrewarded promptly, with an appropriate title and, if possible, a financial award” (p. 237).This advice suggests that incentives should not be used to reward a small number ofindividuals, such as the faculty member with the best new online course design, but ratherto reward all faculty members who participate in the process.

Fink also recommended changing procedures related to faculty work and faculty evalu-ation so that the reward structure is more closely aligned with institutional priorities. If aninstitution is trying to grow online education, to encourage participation in professionaldevelopment for online education, or to improve the quality of online courses, it follows thatthe faculty evaluation reward structure—i.e., the promotion and tenure system—shouldreward these efforts. This study’s finding that participation in online course design, teaching,and professional development was sometimes rewarded in the tenure and promotion processis heartening. Based on Fink’s recommendation, the roughly 50 % of institutions in thisstudy that either did not include online course design, delivery, or professional developmentin tenure and promotion decisions or those institutions that viewed these activitieswith only “minor consideration” might consider adopting a more clearly articulated,explicit, formalized process of recognition. Aligning these institutional expectationsfor online course design and delivery more clearly with the tenure and promotionprocess would more effectively support Fink’s multidimensional model for institutionaleffectiveness. Also, in light of faculty dissatisfaction with available incentives, admin-istrators must work to make these benefits ubiquitous. Fink emphasized that theseprograms must be available to the majority of the faculty (p. 237), and so admin-istrators should work toward making these incentives rewards for participation ratherthan awards for best practices.

408 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410

Page 13: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Conclusion

This study’s findings may be helpful to those making decisions about the use of incentivesfor online instructors by providing benchmarking data on the types and frequency ofincentives currently in use. The variety of incentives and examples from other institutionsmay also provide ideas for possible incentives. Also, this study revealed that the mostfrequently offered incentives, such as financial, are not always aligned with incentives thatmost faculty members have reported as important. This suggests that, when selectingincentives for faculty members, institutions may be able to improve the efficacy of orsatisfaction with the incentives by communicating with faculty members regarding whatincentives they would find motivating or valuable for developing an online course, teachingonline, or participating in faculty development programs for online instructors.

This study has also helped to identify areas where additional research is needed. First,research on which incentive types are effective in motivating faculty to teach or designonline courses would be helpful. Additional research could also be conducted on differencesbetween full-time and part-time faculty preferences for different incentive types. Becausepart-time faculty members teach a higher percentage of online courses than do full-timefaculty members (Seaman 2009) and because part-time faculty members’ participation incourse design or professional development activities may fall outside of their contractualobligations with the institution, the different perceptions of part-time faculty members mayshed further light on the appropriateness of offering particular incentive types.

Higher education institutions with a goal of increasing online instruction must invest inadequate resources for recognition and reward structures. This study revealed that, while manyinstitutions are supporting faculty through investing in incentives, this support is not universal;and institutions looking to expand online education must be cognizant of the need to invest inthe faculty in order to maintain and improve the quality of online education programs.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning. Needham, MA: TheSloan Consortium.

Allen I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course:Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved fromthe Sloan Consortium website: http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/staying_the_course-2.pdf

Allen I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Retrievedfrom the Sloan Consortium website: http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/learning_on_demand_sr2010

Allen I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011).Going the distance: Online education in the United States, 2011. Retrieved fromthe Sloan Consortium website: http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/goingthedistance.pdf

Appana, S. (2008). A review of benefits and limitations of online learning in the context of the student, theinstructor, and the tenured faculty. International Journal on ELearning, 7, 5–22.

Berge, Z. L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post-secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it?Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, I(2). Retrieved from: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer12/berge12.pdf

Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers andadministrators: Results of a survey. In M. Clay (Ed.), Distance Learning Administration Annual 2000.Retrieved from: http://emoderators.com/wp-content/uploads/Man_admin.pdf

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). Classification description. Retrieved from:http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/basic.php

Chou, C., & Tsai, C. C. (2002). Developing web-based curricula: Issues and challenges. Journal ofCurriculum Studies, 34, 623–636.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410 409

Page 14: Faculty Incentives for Online Course Design, Delivery, and Professional Development

Fish, W. W., & Wickersham, L. E. (2009). Best practices for online instructors: Reminders. Quarterly Reviewof Distance Education, 10, 279–284.

Haber, J., & Mills, M. (2008). Perceptions of barriers concerning effective online teaching and policies:Florida community college faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32, 266–283.

Harrison, N., & Bergen, C. (2000). Some design strategies for developing an online course. EducationalTechnology, 40, 57–61.

Hinson, J. M., & LaPrairie, K. N. (2005). Learning to Teach Online: Promoting Success through professionaldevelopment. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 29, 483–493.

Kinuthia, W. (2005). Planning faculty development for successful implementation of web-based instruction.Campus - Wide Information Systems, 22(4), 189–200.

Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A newmodel for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,12, 25–55.

Kuhlenschmidt, S. (2011). Distribution and penetration of teaching-learning development units in highereducation: Implications for strategic planning and research. In J. E. Miller & J. E. Groccia (Eds.), Toimprove the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 29, 274–287.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2002). Distance learning programs: Interregional guide-lines for electronically offered degree and certificate programs. Philadelphia, PA: Author.

Morrow, T. (2003). Faculty development incentive at the University of Florida. In D. G. Brown (Ed.),Developing faculty to use technology (pp. 144–146). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Mupinga, D. M., & Maughan, G. R. (2008). Web-based instruction and community college faculty workload.College Teaching, 56, 17–21.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Integrated postsecondary education data system. Retrievedfrom: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/

Ouellett, M. (2010). Overview of faculty development: History and choices. In K. J. Gillespie & D. L.Robertson (Eds.), A guide to faculty development (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views andexperiences with online learning. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.

Wells, M. (2007). Quality matters: Quality assurance in online courses. Magna Online Seminar. BroadcastMarch 20, 2007. Available at: http://www.magnapubs.com/

410 Innov High Educ (2013) 38:397–410