Search News


Browse Archives

News

Spare the Rod, Pay the Prof

December 21, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Kentucky might be known for being a major exporter of baseball bats. But in Lexington, 75 miles east of the Louisville Slugger factory, the University of Kentucky has decided that blunt objects are not the best way to get professors to create and teach online courses.

Instead, the university is offering to share tuition revenues from online students with colleges and departments that accommodate them. In the College of Arts and Sciences, professors — who are not generally given bonuses for developing new courses — are offered $5,000 to adapt a course to the online medium.

In other words: no mandates, just incentives. Colleges get to keep 60 percent of what the university makes in tuition revenue from the online students enrolled in the summer programs for those colleges. In the College of Arts and Sciences, departments get to keep half of what the college makes from the online students enrolled in that department’s courses. The idea is to give departments control over which of their courses go online, and let them share in the rewards.

And officials there say it is working — not just for the usual suspects in math and science or professional fields, but in humanities departments, too. Mark Kornbluh, a history professor and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, says that biology (Kentucky’s leading major) put the most courses online last summer, but the anthropology, sociology, philosophy, geography, and modern and classical languages departments all took the opportunity to create online courses — 20 altogether from these departments — and each department netted about $20,000. They will be able to use that additional cash on travel, speakers, and department events, Kornbluh says. They are planning more than 40 courses next summer.

Of the college’s 16 departments, only one (which Kornbluh declined to name) did not create an online course. “They were told that the other departments earned some money doing this, but they weren’t punished,” says Kornbluh. That department is planning to add two online courses this summer.

Kentucky currently is limiting the revenue-sharing program to summer courses (which enroll mostly traditional students who are already enrolled at the university), though it is “cautiously” looking to bring it into the fall and spring semesters. The goal of the online push is to give Kentucky students extra opportunities to complete crucial courses they might have failed or skipped during the fall or spring; hence the university is especially encouraging faculty to adapt “bottleneck” courses — i.e., courses students need to pass to advance along a degree path.

Encouraging, but not commanding. The crucial difference between Kentucky’s tack and that of some other public institutions, Kornbluh says, is that it involves no overtures from on high warning departments that they must increase enrollments (presumably by going online) or face possible cuts — an approach that has created tensions at the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. With state budgets tight, many public higher education systems view online teaching as a way to bolster shrinking allocations with extra tuition dollars, and online is viewed as the best way to enroll more students quickly without having to buy land and build classrooms.

Kornbluh also draws a contrast with the strategy employed by the University of Illinois, which sought to create a separate online entity (the now-defunct “Global Campus”) and eventually alienated many of its faculty. “The reason we were successful is that we worked with the faculty and with the departments,” he says. “So this wasn’t something imposed from above as a moneymaking operation.”

James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association, says using carrots in lieu of sticks in order to grow online programs will most likely result in higher-quality online courses. “People are more creative when they’re doing something they want to do than when they’re doing something they’re forced to do,” Grossman says.

“A lot of people just aren’t cut out for online teaching,” says Jean Stuntz, a history professor at West Texas A&M University and president of H-NET, an association of humanities scholars who advocate for the Web as an academic resource. “And this might encourage the ones who are to at least explore and try it out.”

The college also shoulders the development and infrastructure costs of creating the online courses. Hence there is no incentive for departments to throw together low-cost online courses in order to maximize their cut of the revenue, Kornbluh says.

“Our pressure on the departments was, how can you serve general education better, and how can you serve your majors better,” he says. “If this works, you can get rewarded, and if it doesn’t work, you shouldn’t be doing it! And that’s the same thing I tell them about their in-person courses, to be honest.”

For the latest technology news and opinion from Inside Higher Ed, follow @IHEtech on Twitter.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Spare the Rod, Pay the Prof

  • I missed out
  • Posted by Betty , Adjunct Faculty at Community College on December 21, 2010 at 8:00am EST
  • I teach only one subject (related to my profession). I developed an on-line version of my class a few years ago and got about 10 hours extra pay! Did I get cheated?
  • Interesting
  • Posted by Hana , Associate Professor on December 21, 2010 at 8:15am EST
  • I created a course last summer and got paid $1500 for the creation. It ate up about 6 weeks of summer.

    Don't worry - I didn't spend it all in one place.
  • Yes, Betty
  • Posted by Josh M. , PhD Student/Higher Education on December 21, 2010 at 8:16am EST
  • Betty -- short answer is yes. Of course, adjunct and contingent faculty are cheated constantly, and unfortunately, often with their own consent.
  • Kentucky has expanded the deal
  • Posted by Jeannine Blackwell , Dean, the Graduate School at U. Kentucky on December 21, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • Here is an update from Kentucky: in the last 3 weeks, we've moved this experiment beyond the College of Arts and Sciences. We are creating a team approach to distance learning, enhancement of teaching, and academic technology.
    In consultation with the deans, the Provost has recently decided to expand the summer tuition-sharing model for online courses to ALL undergraduate and graduate programs. We now have a modest tuition-sharing model in place for the traditional academic year as well, based on increases in enrollments, per student credit hour. We also have a modest fund to incentivize teaching innovation during the academic year which will improve time to degree, bring in new constituencies, innovate. We have a modest stipend for new distance learning course development ($3000 per new or revised course) for the whole university, offered through the Distance Learning Program. www.uky.edu/TASC
    This is a 3-year pilot. We hope it works!

    I'm speaking on behalf of the team who put this together: TIIF, the Teaching Innovation Incentive Fund.

    Jeannine Blackwell, Assoc Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, U. Kentucky
  • What about hybrid courses?
  • Posted by Samuel J. Huskey , Chair, Classics and Letters at University of Oklahoma on December 21, 2010 at 11:00am EST
  • The University of Oklahoma is offering similar incentives for the development of online courses, but I'd like to see more incentives for the development of hybrid courses, which have been shown to be much more effective than either online or traditional face-to-face instruction. Unfortunately, there isn't a model for funding this kind of instruction. That's going to require some creative leadership, but it will be worth the effort in terms of buy-in from faculty.
  • Kentucky is not alone
  • Posted by Donald J. Farish , President at Rowan University (NJ) on December 21, 2010 at 11:00am EST
  • While I congratulate the University of Kentucky for using carrots, not sticks, to encourage faculty to develop on-line courses, this idea is hardly novel. Rowan University created a College of Professional and Continuing Education (CPCE) more than four years ago, using revenue sharing as an incentive for participating faculty, departments, and colleges. Our motives were partly to reach new populations of students, and partly to develop a new revenue stream to help offset cuts in state appropriations. Offerings including degree completion programs at several community colleges; all-day Saturday classes for working adults; and on-line courses and programs (the last quickly became the dominant component of the program).

    This idea worked so well that we subsequently moved the entire summer school to CPCE, and this year we have moved our entire graduate program as well (renaming the College as the College of Graduate and Continuing Education). Now, only the core undergraduate program is supported by the ever-declining state appropriation; the rest of the university is on self-support.

    Not every department, and certainly not every faculty member, participates in the new College, but the participant numbers increase every year as individual faculty members and departments recognize the opportunity that is presented to augment their too-meager budgets through self-help.

    The key to success is a sense of shared ownership, and that is far better achieved through revenue sharing than through top-down mandates.
  • Who owns the course?
  • Posted by Janet Nepkie , Music at SUNY Oneonta on December 21, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • The idea of encouraging professors to create new online courses instead of threatening those same teachers represents, in my opinion, excellent management skills by administrators. I do wonder, however, who owns the online course material developed by University of Kentucky professors who received financial incentive for those online courses. Can the University assign other full-time teachers or adjuncts to use the courses developed by professors paid for those courses?
  • Misguided imperatives
  • Posted by Harry Coverston , Instructor/Philosophy at University of Central Florida on December 21, 2010 at 12:00pm EST
  • "Encouraging, but not commanding." Well, that's two possible descriptions. But in a context of cuts to budgets, tenure lines, instructorships and expanding class size, the "carrot" of online classes is little more than a thinly veiled coercion tactic. The imperative for such classes is clearly not pedagogical, it's economic. From the perspective of the university, it's utility. From the perspective of the consumer, er, student, it's convenience. But in none of these considerations is pedagogical soundness even on the radar scope.

    To paraphrase the Gospels, Horace Mann wept.
  • Posted by Interested Guest on December 21, 2010 at 12:15pm EST
  • Kudos, Kentucky, for taking an approach that has resulted in a successful online program. I agree that top-down mandates are often failures (in many initiatives beyond online education), but, you know, that's the Illinois way. And it's rather sad.
  • Re: "Who Owns the Course"
  • Posted by Mark Kornbluh , Dean, College of Arts and Sciences at University of Kentucky on December 22, 2010 at 3:45am EST
  • Faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Kentucky are NOT asked to alienate their intellectual property. When the College funds the creation of a course, faculty members are asked to make a commitment to teach the course for three summers or have a teaching assistant teach it under their direction. Should a faculty member leave the university, the college will retire the class or work with another faculty member to develop a different version of the class. Faculty control of the curriculum is the essential pillar of our on-line courses.
  • Online course ownership
  • Posted by Janet Nepkie , Music at SUNY Oneonta on December 24, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • Thanks to Dr. Kornbluh for his further explanation of faculty ownership of courses they author. The last line of your comments, "Faculty control of the curriculum is the essential pillar of our on-line courses," is a heartening endorsement for quality control of your school's educational process.