Identifying a Gap in the Project Management Approach of the Online Program Management and University Partnership Business Model

Authors

  • Swati Ramani Southern California University of Health Sciences
  • George Bradford Keck Graduate Institute
  • Shamini Dias Claremont Graduate University
  • Lorne Olfman Claremont Graduate University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i1.2584

Keywords:

Online Program Management Providers (OPMs), Instructional Design Firms, OPM-University Business Model, Activity Theory, Vendor Management, Outsourcing Instructional Design Services

Abstract

As the number of online courses increase in higher education, many higher education institutions outsource online course development to an Online Program Management (OPM) provider because of a lack of budget, staff, and technology. Current research indicates that OPM providers often do not have instructional design (ID) services tailored to a specific university. This research uses a case study to analyze a business partnership between a research university and an OPM provider. The Activity Theory conceptual framework was used to direct inquiry and analysis. Results show a miss of the “Empathize” (first stage of Design Thinking) phase in the project management approach from the OPM provider side, which made the process appear more like a start-up company and caused some faculty to lose motivation about the instructional design process. A complete Design Thinking approach from the OPM provider and the university partner are very important to reap the most benefits from this relationship.

Author Biography

Swati Ramani, Southern California University of Health Sciences

Swati Ramani, Ph.D. serves as Director of Faculty Development & Curriculum Management at Southern California University of Health Sciences. As Director, she develops and oversees the Center for Faculty Development and Excellence (CFDE). Some of her key areas of focus at work involve: developing faculty learning resources and courses, performing faculty trainings and workshops on pedagogy/andragogy topics, designing and developing online courses with faculty for the new online programs internally and with an outsourced instructional design firm, and support and lead the curriculum management integration with Curriculog. Swati’s research and practice focus on the intersection of pedagogy, instructional technology, and faculty development. Her dissertation title “The Impact of a University/Online Program Management Provider Partnership on Faculty Approaches to Teaching Design: A Case Study using Activity Theory” used Engestrom’s Activity Theory in a case study exploration of the complex interactions in a university’s first initiative working with an Online Program Management (OPM) provider and the impact on faculty learning and pedagogy at the institution. She has presented her work on ‘Rapid Re-design using Active learning’, ‘Individualizing faculty development on the effective use of LMS using TPACK model’, and ‘OPM-University Business Partnerships and Faculty development’ at the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) conferences, as well as other conferences Like Quality Matters (QM) Connect, and EDUCAUSE. Her research interests are in understanding and supporting faculty learning and systematic processes for excellence in faculty development that works toward active, equitable learning for all students. Swati earned her doctorate in Information systems & Technology with a concentration in Instructional Media Design and Educational Technologies from Claremont Graduate University located in Claremont, California. 

Dissertation Awards won:

Transdisciplinary Dissertation Research Award by Claremont Graduate University (2019-2020) 

Online learning consortium Graduate Student Scholar Award (November 2020)--Recognized for presenting my dissertation research study at the conference.

References

Armstrong, J. B., & Sherman, T. M. (1988). Caveat emptor: How SME's can ensure good ID. Performance + Instruction, 27(4), 13-18. DOI:10.1002/pfi.4170270405

Arnseth, H. C. (2008). Activity theory and situated learning theory: Contrasting views of educational practice. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 16(3), 289-302. DOI: 10.1080/14681360802346663

Barczyk, C., Buckenmeyer, J., & Feldman, L. (2010). Mentoring professors: A model for developing quality online instructors and courses in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning, 9(1), 7-26. Retrieved from https://www.editlib.org/p/29273

Bawa, P. (2016). Retention in online Courses: Exploring issues and solutions—A literature review. SAGE Open. 6 (1), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621777

Boling, E., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126. DOI:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.006

Bradford, G., Kehrwald, B. & Dinmore, S. (2011). A framework for evaluating online learning in an ecology of sustainable innovation. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing Demands, Changing Directions. Proceedings ascilite Hobart 2011. (pp. 162-167).

Breunig, M. (2005). Turning experiential education and critical pedagogy theory into praxis. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(2), 106-122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590502800205

Cassim, F. (2013), Hands On, Hearts On, Minds On: Design Thinking within an Education Context. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32: 190-202. DOI:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2013.01752.x

Campbell, P. C. (2014). Modifying ADDIE: Incorporating New Technologies in Library Instruction. Public Services Quarterly, 10(2), 138-149.

Chittur, D. (2018). A phenomenological study of professors and instructional designers during online course development leading to enhanced student-centered pedagogy (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2035341879). Retrieved November 20, 2020, from http://ccl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/docview/2035341879?accountid=10141

Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (1st ed., pp. 1-46) Cambridge University Press.

Educause.edu. (2010). Enhancing student learning and retention with blended learning class guides. Educause Review. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2010/12/enhancing-student-learning-and-retention-with-blended-learning-class-guides

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and transformation. In Y.

Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamaki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engestrom, Y. (2000). Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work. Ergonomics, 43(7), 960-974. DOI:10.1080/001401300409143

Fetherston, T. (2001). Pedagogical challenges for the World Wide Web. Educational Technology Review, 9(1), 25-32.

Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fink, L. D. (2013a). The current status of faculty development internationally. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(2), 1-10. DOI:10.20429/ijsotl.2013.070204

Gayeski, D. M. (1997). Out -of-the Box instructional design: Moving from assembly-line models to non-linear performance models. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from http://www.dgayeski.com/t&disd.html

Hardy, K., & Bower, B. (2004). Instructional and work life issues for distance learningfaculty. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2004(128), 47–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.174

Hone, K. S., & Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016

InsideHigherED.com. (2019). The instructional designer and the OPM conversation | Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved February 11, 2019, from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology-and-learning/instructional-designer-and-opm-conversation

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79. DOI:10.1007/bf02299477

Koh, Joyce Hwee Ling. Chai, Ching Sing, & Wong, Benjamin. (2016). Design Thinking ForEducation: Conceptions and applications in teaching and learning. Place of publication not identified: SPRINGER.

Lin, Y., & Jacobs, R. L. (2008). The perceptions of human resource development professionals in Taiwan regarding their working relationships with subject matter experts (SMEs) during the training design process. Human Resource Development International, 11(3), 237-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860802102526

McQuiggan, C. A. (2007). The role of faculty development in online teaching potential to question teaching beliefs and assumptions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 10(3), 1-13.

Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2016, October 27). Why Online Programs Fail, and 5 Things We Can Do About It. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved May 1, 2018, from https://hybridpedagogy.org/why-online-programs-fail-and-5-things-we-can-do-about-it/

Myers, M. D. (2013). Qualitative research in business and management. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Oliver, R. (2002). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. In L. Foster, B. L.Bower, & L. W. Watson (Eds.), ASHE Reader—Distance education: Teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 249–257). Boston: Pearson Custom.

Pan, C. C., Deets, J., Phillips, W., & Cornell, R. (2003). Pulling tigers' teeth without getting bitten: Instructional designers and faculty. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 289-302. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/97583/.

Paquette, G. (2014). Technology-based instructional design: Evolution and major trends. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 661-671). New York, NY: Springer.

Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia And Hypermedia, 12(3), 227-241. Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/2074/.

Phillips, W. O. (2008). A study of instructor persona in the online environment (Order No. 3319267). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (89210364). Retrieved from http://ccl.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ccl.idm.oclc.org/docview/89210364?accountid=10141

Riter, P. (2017). Five myths about online program management. Educause Review Retrieved June 20, 2018, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/3/five-myths-about-online-program-management

Russell, A. (2015). Online teaching as a catalyst for re-examining pedagogical assumptions. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 26(3), 57-91.

Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming Constructivist Learning into Action: Design Thinking in Education. Design and Technology Education, 17(3), 8–19. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996067

Springer, S. (2018). One university's experience partnering with an online program management (OPM) provider: A Case Study. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 21(1). Retrieved November 20, 2020, from https://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring211/springer211.html

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (p. 273–285). Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

You, J. (2010) A study of faculty members’ perceived utilization of best practices in distance learning course design and delivery and the role of instructional designers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toledo, Toledo, OH. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/toledo1279298347/inline

Downloads

Published

2022-03-01

Issue

Vol. 26 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Section II

License

As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.

Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions