2    The Role of the Department Chair in Supporting Online Graduate Programs in Education

An Auto-Ethnographical Study of Mentorship and Evaluation

Jay Wilson

In this chapter, I examine my administrative experiences while working to support faculty members in their uses of a wide range of approaches and technologies in course design and development at the graduate level. The chapter is a response to the issues identified by Zawacki-Richter and Anderson (2014) for further research on blended and online learning and by Hicks (2014) in regard to the need for institutional support for instructor professional development in delivering on online learning. This chapter will be useful to administrators and faculty members alike as they attempt to understand online and technology-supported programming.

The department chair’s role in supporting and evaluating the delivery of well-designed and effective online programs in graduate education is an under-researched area. I report the findings of an auto-ethnographical study (Ellis & Bochner, 2000) of my department chair experiences while supporting a range of early, mid-, and late-career professors’ work in online learning course development and delivery. I critically examine opportunities and challenges that I encountered in using an academic mentorship approach, which involves face-to-face contact with instructors, as recommended in the work of Savage, Karp, and Logue (2004), in combination with Puentedura’s (2006, 2011) substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition (SAMR) model, for supporting and evaluating the application of technology in the design and delivery of online programs in graduate education. Puentedura’s model provides an accessible (Roth, 2015), peer-reviewed (Romrell, Kidder, & Wood, 2014) structure for conversations about both successes and challenges. Although I have found the SAMR model helpful in framing my approaches to mentorship and evaluation, it has identified contextual gaps (Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016). My analysis and application of the SAMR model, within the context of my own leadership experiences, include representative examples and conclude with recommendations.

The Changing Face of Mentorship

Understanding and unpacking the many roles of department chair often come as on-the-job training. Guides such as the work of Tucker (1984) or Gmelch and Miskin (1995) might serve as resources, but they do not tell the whole story. Both resources are helpful starting points for those taking on the role, but the information provided is general. Many undertake the job of administration based on success that they might have had in research or teaching but not necessarily in administration (Riley & Russell, 2013). The resources available often introduce concepts of creating budgets, handling the assignment of duties, recruiting faculty members, or dealing with conflict and management, but they do not specifically address leadership or mentorship (Hargrove, 2014). An important contributor to mentorship success is the creation of relationships based on positive interactions. Supportive relationships are crucial in the development and growth of new faculty members (Horne, Du Plessis, & Nkomo, 2016), but how do these relationships occur, and can they be part of the administrator’s experience?

The notion of mentorship as the “passing on” of knowledge, experience, and information from a senior individual to a junior member is present in all disciplines in postsecondary education (Smith, 2015; Stubbs et al., 2016; Tejonidhi, Uma, Swathi, Margaret, & Vinod, 2018). This process can cover a range of topics, and the manner in which it is presented can also vary. Not all sharing of information is done formally and is often anecdotal, within specific contexts that allow the information to be applied. Senior professors have knowledge and power, which in turn can make the mentorship process a difficult experience for new or adjunct professors. Junior faculty members might have fear or show deference that does not contribute positively to the mentorship process. In addition to this potential imbalance in power, Savage et al. (2004) identify a shift in mentorship with a loss of socialization contributing to an erosion of the mentorship process. Institutions such as faculty clubs, which played a significant role in the past, have either changed substantively or are disappearing. As a result of this loss of traditional social venues for mentorship, there has been a rise in distrust and disconnection. Many new negative conditions are therefore emerging for early career professors, including a sense of loneliness or isolation and a perceived lack of support.

Impacts on Course Design, Development, and Teaching

The department chair often receives no training or preparation in the field of course design, whether face-to-face or online. When a department chair lacks mentorship expertise, the level of guidance in course design and development, as well as the quality of online learning, is affected. The development of expertise is often left to professors who have been assigned online courses as a result of a departmental or university initiative. They put in play the systems that they have experienced or know but often do so without mentorship or direction. This lack of oversight can lead to a professor who founders or feels unsupported.

As online learning is viewed more and more as an option for postsecondary institutions to reach underserved students and to expand their academic footprints, more attention needs to be paid to it to ensure that it is conducted properly. Along with the increase in technology development comes a range of resources available to both developers and instructors of online courses. What appears to be missing is mentorship beyond simply directing someone to a resource. Much like the manner in which effective teaching and learning are based on actions such as observation, discussion, and knowledge exchange, online learning is more than digitizing and posting content. Rather than simply directing professors to put courses online, there needs to be a systematic means of supporting them in course development. Roth (2015) argued that, even though universities and institutions of higher education often talk about what they plan to do, effective integration is not truly taking place. He identified that a large range of technology integration schema exists, giving many options, but he notes that these options are not being utilized. There is a need not just to make the frameworks or taxonomies available but also to show professors how to apply them.

One such framework (Figure 2.1) that can serve as a guide is the SAMR model put forward by Puentedura (2011).

The SAMR framework has been used primarily as a taxonomy for the integration of technology in teaching. The four stages (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) represent a continuum of integration to build toward a fully supported technology environment for instructors and students. Much like the application of Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy, the initial steps are foundational and minimal. As individual professors progress through the four steps of SAMR, they increase the depths of learning opportunities and supports for students. SAMR is intended to ease instructors into their understandings of the change of methods for online learning.

For those new to the model, substitution is the level at which generally they start. Adding existing information to a learning management system (LMS) or meeting online instead of in a classroom might represent their entire concept of online learning. The next step up might be augmenting traditional face-to-face time with an online discussion area or online groups. Modification of assignments through digital options can be used to create content. Finally, facilitating time, place, path, and pace (Horn & Staker, 2015) to allow for a learning experience that truly would not have been possible without transferring the course to an online environment is viewed as redefinition. Together, these steps take anyone new to online learning into the process gradually, even over a long period of time.

Criticism levelled at SAMR might be valid for those looking to integrate technology and see it as a panacea (Hamilton et al., 2016). The linear nature, the lack of context, and the notion of “product over practice” (p. 434) might generate valid critiques, but using the SAMR model as a way of making sense of the shift to online learning is useful because at the heart of online learning is the move from one instructional approach to another. Rather than a process of prescribing the tools to be used, SAMR identifies how professors move their students into a deeper understanding of content. For certain types of content, a great depth of understanding is not necessary for a student to be successful in the online course. The opportunity to use SAMR to “navigate a complex landscape by seemingly simplifying a multifarious process” is helpful (Hamilton et al., 2016, p. 439).

I have found the SAMR model helpful in framing my approaches to mentorship and evaluation, but it has other applications. SAMR can be used to evaluate different areas of education. For example, Romrell et al. (2014) have used SAMR as a framework for evaluating mobile learning. This similar approach can be used to evaluate the transition from face-to-face learning to fully online supported learning. What they propose is done naturally in some situations, but truly to make a difference the modification and redefinition levels of SAMR should be reached.

Methodology

To share my experiences in mentoring and evaluating professors in online learning, I have chosen to use an auto-ethnographical approach. In this context, mentoring refers to my deliberate attempt to share my experiences to benefit those new to online instruction. Auto-ethnography is the method of sharing experience written from the perspective of the individual at the heart of the experience (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2010). Often the subject is extremely personal, powerful, and guided by a significant incident or epiphany. Successful auto-ethnographic accounts rely on good writing and engaging the reader in the story. The purpose of auto-ethnography is to “inspire and create a connection” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 748). It is up to readers to make sense of what they are reading and to apply it in their current or future contexts.

To achieve educational success in the classroom, instructors must develop understandings of others’ cultures. They need to make efforts to know their students. Sharing stories and listening to those of others provide much-needed insight. In addition to other key aspects of teaching, sharing personal experiences helps to support students to be successful in the classroom. The application of auto-ethnography helps to support the view that all stories contribute to increased understanding.

For the reader to understand my story fully, I need to deal with it in a somewhat systematic way, but rather than “search for facts what is presented is meaning based on an individual’s experience” (Ellis & Bochner, 2000, p. 751). I present what I have experienced from a range of roles, contexts, and perspectives and how these experiences have shaped my approach to my role as department chair. I aim to examine critically the opportunities and challenges that I encountered in using an academic mentorship approach in combination with Puentedura’s (2011) SAMR model for supporting and evaluating the design and delivery of online programs in graduate education.

After I present my experiences, I share the analysis of the work to tease out themes or recurring thoughts that might be useful. Similar to a grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014), my story is written and then analyzed for key outcomes. What occurs repeatedly or has prominence in my story has significance to me and hopefully will provide insight for others. Reading and reflecting on what I have done have comprised a large part of the process. Talking with others involved in my experience has helped me to draw out my actions and the impacts that I and others have recognized. All that I share leads back to the question “How does my work to mentor others contribute to the understanding of the department chair role?”

My Background

Unlike others, I took on the role of department chair with a vast range of practical experiences in course design (Schwier & Wilson, 2010; Wilson, 2013). I believe that these experiences have provided me with insights that help in mentoring and evaluating professors in their online teaching journeys. More than just “street cred,” exposure to many non-traditional ways of delivering courses has allowed me to understand key roles such as student, designer, instructor, and administrator. Each opportunity has added to my understanding. Each failure or struggle has added to my learning. What follows is an overview of the work that has contributed to my understanding of the online course design process.

I have been involved with the design and development of innovative online instruction since the first day that I came to the University of Saskatchewan. Truly on my first day, May 1, 1995, I began work on a new televised course. It comprised four full-day telecasts to over 300 undergraduate teachers spread across the province. The design of the course included the use of voice interaction through existing telephone networks. From this initial experience, I was exposed to so many new ideas. I was not the instructor but part of a team of instructors, technicians, and designers. I was responsible for organizing large numbers of students, producing educational resources, creating message design, and providing student assistance. Not having much specialized training or guidance, we went with what we thought was good or what the students shared with us. I was able to see how addressing a range of learning styles was part of a successful learning experience. The synchronous and asynchronous nature of the experience showed me how both successes and failures could occur. This course was offered for four years, thus affording the chance to revise and reflect on it. We did not see what we were doing as course design, but in hindsight it was. I began to see that I was not only expected to bring my knowledge to the process but also given the opportunity to learn from it.

I next supported the offering of a blended interactive videoconference Master of Nursing program in which the instructor was at one location and a group of students was at another. The development team did not use the term “blended learning” at the time since the technology was so new. My job was to ensure that the technology was working to deliver the content and that the interactivity was facilitated. I learned how important it was to engage students in multiple locations and not to focus on the students who were the easiest to engage. This experience provided me with more insight into why we should break up content and have activities and student-led discussions instead of always relying on the instructor as the source of knowledge.

While supporting distance education, I began teaching undergraduate and graduate courses in a face-to-face environment. This was the first opportunity to develop my teaching style in a manner in which technology was not the mode of delivery. I was able to create a solid foundation as an instructor and to learn the basics without many of the variables that are parts of online environments. This experience helped me to develop my planning skills, prepare assessments and content, and give immediate feedback as part of a traditional classroom. This experience also permitted me to begin integrating technology slowly into my teaching. Using basic tools, I supported my students’ learning within the safety of a face-to-face environment in case anything failed. Over time, I encountered new demographics and new opportunities to learn about learners. I began to experiment with blended courses using a range of videoconferencing tools. It was similar to working with the distance education students again but with a much more flexible system. This was an opportunity to fail and see once again how hard it is to play to two distinct audiences. The student feedback was clear and critical and represented the point where I decided on either face-to-face or online instruction but never a blend of the two.

My first graduate online teaching experiences were part of a program offered fully face-to-face for many years that morphed into an online program. The process involved slowly changing elements of a course or two at a time based on the needs of students. Each instructor had a course with which she or he was familiar and looked at ways to make the transition. We worked with one another to provide support, but there was no central or administrative direction, and each process was unique. The work was guided by principles of instructional design and teaching. We made many mistakes, and it became clear that, when a review of the program was required, a systematic look at what the individuals were doing was necessary. This review and a subsequent reapplication for program status allowed us to be more systematic and consistent in the redesign of the program. We looked for what had been successful and made it common among all of the courses. In the end, we had a battle-tested, coherent program.

Running parallel to my work designing courses was my experience as a distance education student. Enrolling in a doctoral program from Australia gave me the opportunity to see distance learning from a new perspective. This program used a basic text and voice model utilizing printed material, email, and audio teleconferencing. Communication with the instructor was primarily through email. There was no text-based discussion board, mailing list, or other means of interacting with other students in the program. There were semi-regular telephone calls, but the process was highly impersonal and did not promote engagement. This experience demonstrated to me how difficult it was to create quality technology-supported graduate programming. Poor program success rates reflected the inability of this approach to support graduate students who needed more than access to information. Only 2 of the 17 students who started the program in my cohort finished it at a distance. The experience was one of isolation and perseverance. I worked alone during my courses. There was little instructional connection until my dissertation work started, but even that was limited to email. The experience also showed me how the individual needs of students are not always considered in course design and delivery.

Throughout my time at the University of Saskatchewan, there has been a push to utilize innovative technology. I began my postsecondary career just as the Internet was becoming a ubiquitous way to support learning. My university was on board early with a learning management system, taking a chance as an early adopter, and as a result there was an opportunity to learn the basics before a wide range of online options became available. The first online courses used simple text-based forums or discussion boards to leverage skills that students already possessed. As each LMS iteration was released, a new tool or function was added. Although university support consisted of the provision of an LMS, users dealt with innovation that was evolving and sometimes not stable. We were moving from correspondence or distance education to online learning. Factors that we could not control began to materialize. Stop-gap measures such as copies of online materials had to be provided for students in areas with poor connectivity. Synchronous video was not an option initially, so telephones supplemented online discussion and electronic copies of readings. This experience showed me the dangers and rewards of taking chances in course design. If one was willing to put in the effort, then the return was positive but also came with the risk of pain.

On my campus are a number of excellent groups that have supported me over many years. I work with these groups regularly. I consult with them; they consult with me. I am often asked to pilot new software or options. As a result, I am on the bleeding edge and come face-to-face with issues that I might not have experience dealing with because they are in a context different from mine. This exposure gave me a chance to broaden my horizons and to see where I really stood on issues of course design and delivery. As an example, to look for ways to improve support campus wide, the distance education unit, in collaboration with the teaching and learning centre, wanted to create an online instructor’s toolbox. They wanted to have material available and to curate what was already there. I thought that, if we truly were addressing the needs of instructors, then the material should be more interactive. My belief was based on what I was hearing from other administrative participants. They did not necessarily agree even though I was convinced that I was proposing a solution to an issue that they thought was relevant. The major sticking point was accountability. Who would respond? How would questions be answered? Was it okay to refer an instructor to another member of the team whose expertise was more suited to the requests being made? In the end, an excellent online resource was created to leverage the best materials available but without real-time instructor support. It was the best offering under the circumstances and gave me a chance to reflect on whether or not my ideas were appropriate.

My understanding of online learning has the benefit of many years of course design in a range of roles and situations. It is my hope that each time I have an experience I can bring it to my conversations with others and guide my own actions for the benefit of as many stakeholders as possible.

Becoming a Department Chair

When I became the chair of the Curriculum Studies department, I found myself wearing many hats, and along with this new role came many expectations. Early on in my appointment and even as I gained experience, I often found it challenging to manage the wide range of tasks encompassed by a department chair. It is a struggle to deal with all that is expected given little previous knowledge of a complex institution with detailed sets of procedures and processes. Expectations come from many sources. Deans and senior administrators expect you to represent institutional-level interests. Colleagues wish to maintain existing relationships or expand them based on your perceived new level of influence. Members of your department see you as an advocate for their personal program, research, and teaching needs. Along with these expectations, basic financial duties, personnel issues, significant numbers of meetings, collegial processes, and academic mentorship are all important aspects of the position. I have asked myself “What does someone like me entering the job really know?” I might have observed or participated on the periphery but never assumed direct responsibility for any of these tasks. I see myself as an instructor, researcher, and professor. I have to be organized to take on these roles, but my scope is narrow. I look after my personal piece of the university. Traditionally, for the most part, those who rely on me are undergraduate and graduate students. This is not to say that I took on the new role completely unsupported, and I have interacted with those who occupied the position before me.

When I started as chair of the department, attempts were made to transition me into the job, such as job shadowing, meeting with others across campus, or having informal coffee meetings. Limited professional development opportunities were provided to address the basics of leadership. Official university-sponsored department chair orientations took place. These initiatives are great for surface-level or immediate issues, but unfortunately for many department chairs their successors are often on leave or moving on to other administrative roles. A former department chair represents the most important source of insight and institutional knowledge about the role. Learning by doing has helped one’s predecessor to gain understanding, and to have access to this understanding is deeply beneficial. I might be an anomaly based on my experience. I sheepishly share with others the supportive relationship that I have with the individual who held the position before me. There is secretarial and administrative support, and if one is lucky these individuals have been on the job for a while and know the important processes. They do not, however, have the same requirements or expectations as the incoming chair. They help the new chair do what needs to be done, providing of course that the new person knows what the heck that is.

On top of the many new administrative expectations, the individual is responsible for his or her own teaching and for that of everyone else in the department. The burden is potentially overwhelming. It can also be particularly tricky in a College of Education in which teaching has a high priority and profile. In my experience, some of the courses that I have been responsible for staffing are actually about effective course design. I try to find not only competent instructors but also those able to deliver effectively the subject where the actual instruction is the course itself. If this sounds confusing to you, it does to me as well. When we talk about “practising what we preach,” there is no clearer example. Success or improvement in teaching is a significant aspect of a professor’s career. I am now responsible for annual reviews, salary reviews, and tenure and promotion, and all of these processes are affected by success and growth in teaching.

Another task not likely to be on the radar for a new administrator is supporting course design. The new chair might have designed courses before, but there is a chance that her or his knowledge of the area is limited. The individual might or might not have extensive teaching experience or a background in online course design and delivery or familiarity with the many technological options available to instructors. Even though many tools, systems, and resources exist to help guide the process of course design and delivery, the experience will likely be foreign to most incoming department chairs. By extension, they might not know how to evaluate whether or not a particular professor is successful in delivering instruction at the graduate level or in other contexts. Tools can be used to evaluate instruction, but often they are unreliable or focused on aspects that do not give a clear picture of what is really happening. They act more like popularity contests and are not true indicators of instructional efficiency. Taking the results of these tools at face value can be dangerous in that poor approaches can be supported or go undetected.

Even if the new department chair is experienced in course design, there can be both advantages and disadvantages. I came to my new position with a wealth of knowledge and experience in course design in traditional face-to-face, technology-rich, and online contexts. When I reflect on my experience, I see examples of both. One advantage is that, by having made many mistakes, I am able to give honest and direct advice. “This is what didn’t work for me, and this is how you might approach it to mitigate similar problems.” My experience also helps me to ask the right questions so that I can more accurately evaluate an individual’s performance.

Another positive that I find in any mentoring situation is that, when I share my experiences, including mistakes, the advice is more readily accepted. Through this engagement, a traditionally imbalanced relationship begins to level. It is less an administrator directing professors and more a collegial interaction. Through our dialogues, instructors realize that they are not alone or in a position unique to them. They can more fully appreciate that good and bad things will happen and that options exist to ensure that they will be fine in the end. This “transformation through dialogue” is a powerful part of the mentoring process. Once a process for sharing and learning is established, there is a great sense of relief in the instructor. I am also able to identify appropriate course designs based on content and similar audience. As schools of thought in course design come and go, and having been through a range of cycles, I bring a longitudinal perspective to my advice. There are also general characteristics of students in a program that I have noticed repeatedly, and it is beneficial to share them. When we meet, I am not telling the instructor what to do but giving him or her a peek at the next level. This process is much like working through the stages of the SAMR model. I see myself helping to sort through what instructors might have read in books and applying it to the student demographic particular to our program. Often, I have read the same literature, which helps me to navigate to the must-have advice or resource.

Possessing advanced knowledge can also have its disadvantages. I am often approached by others with questions for which I already know what works. I can see how mistakes are made because of a lack of consultation or understanding. It is important not to point out what is obvious to me with the aid of hindsight. Instead, a discussion needs to take place about the goals or intentions of the decisions that have been made. This process is easier when a trusting relationship exists and a “safe place” to unpack the experience is provided.

In most instances, I meet with instructors because they are not sure what to do. The range of experience in online learning is wide in any university, college, or department. Instructors who come to me are at different stages of growth in their academic careers and online learning experiences. Experienced designers and instructors might want to be in contact but do not require the investment and support that the inexperienced ones do. The experienced ones are generally more sophisticated in their approaches and might want to run new ideas past me to unpack them or receive feedback. For instructors at a basic level, not only are administrators supporting their pedagogical understanding, but also they might have a limited or non-existent understanding of technology and facilitation. As expected, this second group requires much more personal contact time. Their confidence and competence need to be nurtured.

I find it important to give professors the freedom to create courses that best suit their instructional approaches. Many academics have successfully learned using systems and processes that make sense to them and look for plans to make their work easy to carry out. In using the term “freedom,” I mean not providing a recipe or a locked-down list of steps to follow. Rather than make all of the decisions for them, I hope that they are able to learn through their own skills and experiences. The latter situation can create an internal conflict for me. If total freedom is not good and no freedom also is not good, then I struggle with trying to determine how much freedom is appropriate. One has to keep in mind that the students’ needs are crucial in any course design process. One does not want an instructor to try something that might endanger students’ learning or make their experiences worse than the current approach provides.

There is also a need to remain current by undertaking innovation in instruction. I have heard from many students who have been caught in the vortex of course revisions or changes, and they are not always happy. They question why they are the test subjects. They might have a limited understanding that courses are always undergoing change and revision. I tell instructors to communicate with their students. Make it clear to them that they are participating in change for the better, but there will always be elements that need to be ironed out or might not work the first time through. One outcome I have observed is that communicating the uncertainty makes the students more aware of what is taking place. This concept is especially true if learners think that they are part of something new or challenging. The single act of communication or instruction to graduate learners often makes a significant positive difference. In my experience, students are more likely to tolerate uncertainty or be constructively vocal about it when they feel that they are part of the process. The comments on the course evaluations are different as well. The learners are less focused on the failings of the instructor and more constructive about the course design and delivery. This feedback is significantly more beneficial for all involved than comments about how the instructor dressed or whether he or she was competent with PowerPoint.

Yet giving complete freedom to professors is not always the best for a number of reasons. Instructors new to online or technologically supported learning do not fully understand the importance of engagement. They might think that students will learn from the materials that have been provided or the tools that are being used, but there is a need to have more and explicit engagement. Instructors’ understanding of innovative learning might be low or not as current as required, and their struggle with technology can be obvious. There is fear or a lack of confidence that undermines their perceived levels of competence. Valid concerns exist when they have limited amounts of teaching experience. Although it might seem to be strange, it is not uncommon for newly hired professors to be given online courses. So, not only are they new to teaching in higher education, but also they have the added burden of designing and offering online courses in which mistakes can be magnified and the number of variables that need to be controlled is large.

To see how these experiences might be improved, I looked for a model that allows for the inclusion of more technology. I have used Puentedura’s (2011) SAMR model (Figure 2.1) in my past teaching on integrating technology into teaching. I used the model to begin discussion and found it to be a successful way to ease anxiety and systematize the process for pre-service instructors. By using SAMR to support early career academics, I can show them where they are, and which possibilities lie ahead. If they are already at the modification level, then I can show them their progress. If they are just getting started at the substitution level, then the model can help them to realize that the first few steps are generally simple and easy to attain. Chunking the process of course development using SAMR creates possibilities that can alleviate many fears. Staging the process of growth makes the experience less intimidating. I take the time to connect with these individuals and treat our early work much like completing a needs assessment. They might not know what they do not know. They often approach the process in an unsystematic and sporadic manner, waiting for an emergency instead of planning ahead. This aspect of the mentorship process should take place early in the career of any new academic in order to support her or his efforts to enhance initial online teaching capacities and then to transform online teaching practices.

Introducing professors to a framework to systematize the process of transition is one of the more helpful ways of migrating from traditional face-to-face teaching to online teaching. In my experience, the SAMR model provides the instructor with just such an approach to the new form of teaching. Although it is the basic level of the SAMR model, the substitution of one form of delivery of information with another is a starting point. The simple act of shifting text-based content online is a starting point, but a lack of interactivity often creates a sterile learning environment for students. They might be asked to find, read, interpret, and share their thoughts on works without guidance. As a result, the complete absence of the instructor is an issue. Instructors who simply put their notes online and require their students to hand in assignments are not implementing an effective model for learning. This change can represent the substitution of the instructor for no live instruction or asynchronous interaction, but this is not to the benefit of the learner. Some professors might think that, when the design work is done in advance, it is up to students to work through the content. An instructor might approach the course as online self-study. It has been my experience that when these situations occur instructors are blissfully unaware of the revolt brewing below the surface. Students are generally vocal early on in the process. They contact the department chair to “fix things” or to send a message to the instructor. This situation provides an opportunity for delicate yet clear discussion of what is required of the instructor. The conversation might reveal a need for the department chair to reinforce the key elements of online instruction.

At the other end of the spectrum is the example of too much engagement by the instructor or students. Such an intensive approach can lead to unrealistic expectations of both the instructor and students. In the mind of the professor, the class can take precedence over everything else. The professor might expect students to be reading, connecting, and thinking about the course at all times. In the area of assessment, this instructional behaviour can take the form of an unreasonable number of posted readings, too many required postings, or excessive amounts of technology-mediated group work. A student might feel a need for support from the instructor at all times and might be able to access the professor through a range of technologies. I suggest to professors that, on the first day of class and in the syllabus, they make it clear that access is limited to certain times or that a 24-hour response rule is in place. Both situations represent significant differences from face-to-face instruction.

Department chairs are sometimes unable to use their knowledge and experience as administrators in their role of mentoring or evaluating. Even though they might be responsible for the assignment of teaching duties, they might not know how to navigate through the online or technology-supported teaching process. They might see value in using text and voice to support graduate students but do not know how to balance them or to determine the proper amount of resources to allocate to development. If they have little or no online teaching or technology experience, then they might have to rely on institution-wide supports. Use of these supports is not necessarily a bad option, but they add an extra layer of administration that can increase frustration for the instructor and delay the design process. As department chair, I might ask: “Do I rely on the local design and technology support systems? Do I put my faith in the teaching and learning centre? Will the centre support the needs and goals of my department? Does its agenda support all learner types, or is it wedded to a particular model?” The more the department chair knows the better she or he will understand course design at all levels, but at what point does the new department chair take the time to understand a process that might be foreign to her or him? I have been fortunate to have the support of well-trained designers and information technology (IT) personnel. I feel confident in directing other administrative colleagues and professors to these supports. I also recognize for a variety of reasons that other department chairs might not have such luxuries or confidence.

As I go through the process of mentoring and evaluating, I ask myself a number of questions: “What are my dilemmas?” “Where do I struggle in my work of guiding people?” I am often faced with the knowledge that a professor is weak in a particular area of instruction or might be looking for a convenient way to deliver their courses. Do I tell such professors what to do or guide them to a source of help? It is at this stage of support that Dewey’s (1933) influence lands squarely on me. Reflection is so much a part of what happens—reflecting on what they might have done previously that was not successful, reflecting on what they have heard from colleagues and peers. Reflection is part of my approach to mentoring and supporting professors. Reflecting on my own course design failures helps me greatly in supporting the pursuits of others. I know that I have been in the same position and can empathize with them. I am still faced with the thought “Who am I to tell them what to do or how to teach?” These internal conversations are important. I believe that they represent a genuine desire to be better at what I do. If my dissonance level is low, then it might signal a lack of commitment or a need to step back and reprioritize what is taking place. I believe that this strategy is useful and appropriate for assessing all aspects of my job, not just teaching support.

To ensure that communication with professors of my department is clear and that I am as helpful as possible, I purposefully create an environment that allows professionals to feel physically and intellectually comfortable. My office is clean and tidy, a place where we can focus on the needs of teachers and students. I have big comfortable chairs in my office into which instructors can flop and share what is on their minds. The “Oh, crap!” chairs are important. The physical comfort that they provide is remarkable. Using these chairs was not planned, but they have become integral to the process of mentoring. Over time, professors feel more at ease, and deep conversations about teaching can result. The conversations are one on one. The professors engage me as newcomers or experts. The meetings are not interviews or training sessions. I keep materials such as books, articles, syllabuses, and other resources to take away, share, consult, or review. These resources become part of the dialogue and are directly related to the focus and flow of our conversations. We get to know one another in order to develop trust. We talk about whatever comes to mind. Stories that seem to be unconnected or inappropriate are actually foundational to understanding what is important to the instructor. The stories serve as a way for me to gauge the place or perspective from which the individual approaches teaching. This process reinforces to both of us that courses are not designed and offered without contexts. Even in cases in which the person is experienced, it is an especially important reminder. The ever-changing aspects of teaching life come into play, and we can discuss in depth how the previous class or session went. We can ask ourselves “What did my reflection bring forward to influence what is happening now or perhaps in the future?” I am as open and honest as possible, and this approach allows others to be the same with me.

What often arises from initial conversations with someone new to online learning or the use of technology is that there are unique aspects of graduate-level course design that need to be communicated to professors who work online. One of the first concepts that we discuss is the notion of pacing the course and its material. Graduate students often juggle professions, families, and other commitments. Discovering that the course you are teaching is not the focus of your students’ lives can be unsettling to some instructors, but it is important to give students enough time to engage successfully with the content, complete the assignments, attend course meetings, and connect with their online peers. We also unpack the idea that expectations of graduate students must be realistic. Some students take a course only because it is convenient. They might need one more class to finish a degree and might not be studying in your discipline, and they will do the minimum amount of work required. Other students might not see the need to connect with you or other students regularly. For these reasons, instructors can spend a significant amount of time trying to make students love the process for which they are not suited or the content in which they are not truly interested. This can be a cold realization for new instructors but important for their understanding.

Most online courses will have students with varied background experiences. Certain students might not have learned to communicate using technology, or they might feel intimidated by it. They might prefer direct emails or phone calls to the instructor. This behaviour often runs counter to the development of an online community and a depth of understanding. Experiences shared with others through text-based technologies is part of successful online learning, and when students are allowed to keep their thoughts semi-private it reduces group learning. A student’s current employment situation is also something that online instructors need to consider. Are there experiences that cannot be shared because of work requirements? It is up to the professor to ensure that this inability to divulge information fully does not affect assessment or evaluation. For students who are also busy professionals, there are times of the academic year when they cannot devote all of their time to classwork, such as around a fiscal year end or report card time. Keeping these outside pressures in mind is important. When I meet with instructors, I can communicate to them students’ needs. Once instructors are made aware of these needs, it helps to take pressure off both them and students.

Instructors need to ask themselves “What do students understand and know or at least think they do?” So much of what happens in our learning environment is relational. We as instructors need to understand the creation of an environment that suits our students’ relationships with each other, with us, and with learning resources. When I teach, in class or online, I see myself as the same person. I might need to be more animated, or speak more clearly than I do in person, but I am true to myself. Part of being an instructor is being comfortable with who I am. I believe that you will be exposed as a fraud quickly if you are not.

Another key piece of advice is keeping a focus on the needs of all those involved in the online course. Finding a balance among what the program and/or institution requires, what the instructor is capable of or aspires to, and what the student needs to be successful factors into the resources and energies directed to online course design and development. When a formal rubric or focus in determining or assessing what is crucial in the design of online courses is necessary, those who have never undertaken a course evaluation might be at a loss. Concerns about the quality of design and implementation might be addressed partly by the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) Quality Scorecard Suite Standards (OLC, 2014), but they might need to be modified or interpreted slightly differently to accommodate graduate students. Often students’ needs are the last to be attended to (or at least students might think that this is the case). To address this issue, we cannot always use the power structure that exists in a postsecondary institution. The OLC makes its comprehensive tool available so that it can be used for programmatic review or applied at a course level. The tool reviews a range of aspects that makes up a quality online offering. As assessment and evaluation become greater parts of a professor’s work, utilizing a proper feedback mechanism goes a long way toward identifying areas in need of change. The tool can serve as a focal point when difficult decisions or discussions need to take place about a professor’s online course. It is also an example of how important it is to do something with information from an evaluation. If you are collecting performance or user satisfaction data, you need to be as consistent and systematic as possible. The tool, if applicable, can be used longitudinally to show growth both as an outside assessment and as a self-assessment. I use this tool periodically as a measuring stick to give myself perspective on courses that I teach or programs that I support. I can also share it with others to gain external perspectives and identify possible gaps in what I think is happening and what is actually happening. It is helpful since it is so much more than course evaluation, and it is especially useful for those not just overseeing online courses but also looking after entire online programs.

Administrators need to support all course development for professors. Generally, this support means advocating on students’ behalf to deans and associate deans. As a department chair, you need to be an informed voice at the university level of programs of support and on resource decision making. In online or technology-rich course development, the range of supports and needs is greater. Proper levels of instructional technology, instructional design, and web development are needed. Training support contributes positively to the success of the instructor and the students. When these supports are not provided, it is the department chair’s responsibility to advocate for them at college and university levels.

Instructors must be made aware of the strong external expectations related to online learning. There is often an assumption at the institutional level that online learning can be a revenue stream that engages large numbers of students at low cost. A simple digitization of a regular face-to-face course, especially one that is required in a program or applies to a number of programs, might be viewed as an easy option to engage massive numbers of students. Time and time again, I have had to crush the hopes and dreams of those who see online learning as an untapped revenue stream. They demonstrate their limited understanding of what online learning is and is not through their excitement about a potential windfall. They often argue that economies of scale with massive online open courses do exist. Some propose large online course offerings as another way to deliver effective learning. I point out to them that they would not put 1,000 students in a face-to-face classroom. Why would they think that doing so would work online, where the needs are greater and the efforts to create presence and community are challenging? Not only is this line of thinking wrong, but also it can be used to protect substandard course offerings. Unfortunately, the belief that quantity of students is more important than quality of instruction is still part of the postsecondary system. There will always be trouble spots with course implementation, but good initial design for supporting teaching and learning will always triumph.

The transition to online course status for any class must be systematic and measured. Just like the design of any good instruction, a number of factors need to be addressed. Educating upper-level administration on best practices has to be undertaken. This “pulling back of the curtain” will reveal how much really needs to be done to design and develop online courses properly. It is also an example of the importance of educating everyone involved in course design and delivery.

What Does My Story Really Say?

I need to contextualize all that I have shared in this chapter with the understanding that in my heart I am a teacher, and I want to see only the best for my colleagues and students in their teaching and learning experiences. Reflecting on what I have shared, I have to ask myself “What does this process do to me as a department chair or an instructor? What will happen when I go back to being just a regular professor?”

Professors should aspire to be more than better technicians; they should be dedicated to their craft regardless of the context. Most of us go through a teaching year or cycle working in multiple situations: graduate, undergraduate, online, and face-to-face. We have to be flexible in how we address our teaching. My need to share through this chapter has been inspired not by catastrophe or a significant moment but by a slice of the large pie that comprises being a middle manager in postsecondary education. I put forward for review my experiences for you to read, appreciate, and perhaps compare with your own contexts. There is no intent to generalize but a chance to experience what I have lived for a period of time. You might wish to compare it with your experience and apply it to your future work. By reading this, you have been exposed to a new way of understanding, and you can modify this approach or use a different metaphor or framework to achieve the same goal. Maybe reflecting on and writing about your own experiences will allow you to find your own strengths and weaknesses. I have found the process of looking back on what I have done to be revealing, difficult, yet satisfying.

My experience with technology-supported and online course development has shaped my approach to mentoring others in their quests to understand how best to migrate courses from traditional delivery or to create new courses from scratch. I have had the relative luxury of having used many successful and unsuccessful technologies, and I have designed many face-to-face and online courses. I have worked as an instructional designer and taught instructional design at the graduate level. I have also designed or redesigned a number of programs for face-to-face and online delivery. Despite this depth of knowledge, each situation needs to be approached differently. The topic will be different, and the instructor will have a different level of understanding.

I have faced similar struggles along the way and hope to share how I overcame them without dictating that others have to do likewise. I have no real template. There are many books that guide individual instructors on how they might approach the task, but for a department chair there is no manual for encouraging, guiding, and continually supporting new and experienced instructors in their forays into online and technology-supported learning. Clearly, there is no substitute for experience. The people who have tried and failed and then succeeded and then failed again are often the ones who have had the most success.

I hope that I have demonstrated that, when it comes to working with technology and online learning, there will always be change. My experience has shown me that those who believe that they have conquered a particular challenge and think that they can rest will be surprised to see administrative changes that force them to revisit their online courses and respond to those changes. The surprise can be pleasant or nasty, but all instructors should be prepared for it.

As a department chair, your relationships with professors in your department will change. Instructors in online and blended learning need to prepare for more mentoring than they might have anticipated. The familiar approach to teaching that many of them have enjoyed in traditional classrooms might be replaced by a feeling of inadequacy or helplessness. As chair, you need to go beyond simply attaching people to courses based solely on their content knowledge.

Recommendations

There are some key considerations for those who are pondering a move into an administrative role or currently in one in regard to supporting online and technology-supported instruction. From my reading, writing, reviewing, sharing, and thinking, I can highlight information that I consider to be the most salient. When I reached this point in the writing process, I had to ask myself “What do I think is important to make administrators aware of so that they can be most successful?” Based on my experience, I do not believe that there is a universal approach to supporting professors. Each individual, context, and content area will be different. One certainty as a department chair is that the more you know the more you will be able to help others.

Your ability to provide support is dependent on how much time you are willing or able to commit to everyone engaged in online or technology-supported learning. Building strong relationships that value all individuals is crucial. Horne et al. (2016) apply the leader-member exchange theory to show how those who receive more attention are more likely to be successful and supported. Their research underscores the need to create an environment that supports mentorship (including putting comfy chairs in your office).

Before you take the job of department chair, ask what the expectations are regarding course or program development. You might want to use a model such as SAMR to bring structure to the process (Puentedura, 2011). There might be initiatives under way that you are expected to complete or champion. Your institution might have invested significantly in a tool or tools that your faculty members are expected to use. Is there a plan for professional development at the university level? Will you have to organize professional learning for your department? To ensure success, consult with, undertake research, and reach out to strong and experienced instructors or include them in meetings. You are the person responsible for keeping initiatives moving at the departmental level, including teaching assignments, and there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of supports.

In terms of assignments, do not give online courses to new professors or force them to use technology in their teaching. They need to become good instructors before they venture into online learning or the application of unfamiliar technologies. Train professors first in the basic technologies that they need to be successful, and then look at ways to engage them in the unique aspects of online teaching (Orr, Williams, & Pennington, 2009; Paloff & Pratt, 2011). If they show an interest in such teaching, have them shadow your experienced online instructors or co-teach with those using technology skilfully in face-to-face situations. Support programs such as the Distance Education Mentoring Program at Purdue University show potential for a systematic process of engagement to assist those new to online teaching (Hixon, Barczyk, Buckenmeyer, & Feldman, 2011).

Encourage your professors to develop a community in which they can find support and ask questions about teaching. The approach supplements the traditional senior-to-junior mentoring and works when groups are involved (Pololi & Evans, 2015). When faculty members develop a layer of support, it will help them to deal with feelings of isolation and benefit you as the department chair (Savage et al., 2004). Working with others going through a similar process can encourage them to reflect on what they have done in the past that has contributed to their success. This reflective process helps them to realize that they have a strong teaching foundation and helps to ensure that their confidence does not wane when they run into new challenges with online learning.

Instructors who teach online or use technology will have their own versions of success. As in traditional face-to-face instruction, there is not one correct approach. Communicating options, listening to and learning from others, and sharing what you have learned from them are key ways in which a department chair can support professors regardless of their level of experience with online learning. By being supportive and valuing online and technology-supported learning, department chair and instructor can share a successful experience.

Conclusion

The role of department chair is challenging and filled with many exciting opportunities to learn, with many surprises associated with each day. To be successful, you must attend to all areas of the role, especially when it comes to supporting faculty members. Any effort that you put into guiding, nurturing, and helping them to grow will create a more positive and productive environment. When managed properly, the unique challenges of graduate teaching will lead to an enriched teaching and learning experience for professors, students, and you as the administrator. All that I have presented here has resulted from reflecting on my range of experiences. The most important message that I hope you take away from this chapter is how much we can learn from reflecting on our practice.

References

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals by a committee of college and university examiners. New York, NY: Longmans.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1998). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, C., Adams, T., & Bochner, A. (2010). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research/Sozialforschung, 12(1). doi:10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589

Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733–768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gmelch, W. H., & Miskin, V. D. (1995). Chairing an academic department: Survival skills for scholars (Vol. 15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Hargrove, S. K. (2014). From faculty to chair. In P. Mosely & S. Hargrove (Eds.), Navigating academia: A guide for women and minority STEM faculty (pp. 119–136). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Hicks, M. (2014). Faculty development and faculty support. In O. Zawacki-Richter & T. Anderson (Eds), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda (pp. 267–286). Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

Hixon, E., Barczyk, C., Buckenmeyer, J., & Feldman, L. (2011). Mentoring university faculty to become high quality online educators: A program evaluation. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(4).

Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Horne, A. L., Du Plessis, Y., & Nkomo, S. (2016). Role of department heads in academic development: A leader-member exchange and organizational resource perspective. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 1021–1041.

Online Learning Consortium. (2014). Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org

Orr, R., Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2009). Institutional efforts to support faculty in online teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 34, 257–268. doi:10.1007/s10755-009-9111-6

Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pololi, L. H., & Evans, A. T. (2015). Group peer mentoring: An answer to the faculty mentoring problem? Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 35, 192–200.

Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/

Puentedura, R. R. (2011). A brief introduction to TPCK and SAMR. (Freeport workshop slides). Retrieved from http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2011/12/08/BriefIntroTPCKSAMR.pdf

Riley, T. A., & Russell, C. (2013). Leadership in higher education: Examining professional development needs for department chairs. Review of Higher Education & Self-Learning, 6(21), 38–57.

Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mlearning. Online Learning, 18(2), 1–15. Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/435/105

Roth, R. L. (2015). Frameworks for integration of digital technologies at the roadside: Innovative models, current trends, and future perspectives. International Journal of Learning, Teaching, and Educational Research, 13(2), 37–54.

Savage, H., Karp, R., & Logue, R. (2004). Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities. College Teaching, 52(1), 21–24. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559169

Schwier, R. A., & Wilson, J. R. (2010). Unconventional roles and activities identified by instructional designers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(2), 134–147.

Smith, W. (2015). Relational dimensions of virtual social work education: Mentoring faculty in a web-based learning environment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 236–245.

Stubbs, B., Krueger, P., White, D., Meaney, C., Kwong, J., & Antao, V. (2016). Mentorship perceptions and experiences among academic family medicine faculty: Findings from a quantitative, comprehensive work-life and leadership survey. Canadian Family Physician, 62(9), 531–539.

Tejonidhi, M., Uma, B., Swathi, H., Margaret, R., & Vinod, A. (2018). Exemplary faculty mentoring programme. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations [Special issue]. doi:10.16920/jeet/2018/v0i0/120941

Tucker, A. T. (1984). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Wilson, J. R. (2013). Course design using an authentic design studio model. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(1), 1 – 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.21432/T22S3P

Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (2014). Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.