Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Quality course management is integral to establishing a thriving online learning environment. Increasing demand for online learning has resulted in different approaches to online course management. The academic coaching model is an approach that provides instructional support for learners within online courses. This research examines the attributes, behaviors, preferences, and attitudes of online faculty who use academic coaches as members of an instructional support team. The aim was to identify effective strategies or best practices for successfully integrating the academic coach team model within online courses. A sequential exploratory mixed method research design was employed, and seven themes emerged: coach selection process, coach-student ratio, communication between coaches and faculty, responsibilities of coaches, student communication, grading, and benefits and risks of using a coach. Results are presented herein that offer interested faculty guidance about using academic coaches as members of an online instructional support team.

Keywords

Academic coaches effective practices instructional support online learning

Introduction

Across the United States, overall student enrollment is declining at higher education institutions, but online course enrollment is escalating (Whitford, 2021). Over the last 20 years, the number of online courses has increased gradually, and expanded rapidly during the nearly universal transition to online learning due to the pandemic (Lehan et al., 2018). The quality of online courses is a key concern brought about because of this recent growth. The quick shift to online learning may have resulted in some courses that need improvement to meet quality standards (Bonfield et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2021).

Online courses must meet quality design and delivery standards to ensure student satisfaction and retention. Students enrolled in online courses tend to have a higher dropout rate (Lehan et al., 2018). Shared learning is the cornerstone of quality online course design and delivery. Instructors facilitate collaborative learning by incorporating learner-to-learner and learner-to-instructor interactions resulting in the need for a foundation to develop an online learning community (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). By providing opportunities for online students to feel connected with others, the possibilities for success increase. Impactful, effective delivery of online courses is needed to support the retention of the large, diverse, non-traditional student population enrolled in online classes (Kim et al., 2021).

Quality course design and delivery combine to provide an environment where students can learn to become interdependent and independent online learners (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). An online student who feels welcomed and supported by the instructor is more likely to succeed. With the increase in online courses, instructional support assistance has become more common to enhance effective course delivery. Teaching assistants have been noted to be critical members of the teaching and learning team, regardless of the course delivery modality (Center for Teaching and Learning, n.d.). Academic coaches implemented as teaching assistants for instructional support could play an invaluable role in online student support. However, little is known about implementing an academic coach team approach to instructions support within online courses. There is an overall scarcity of literature related to online instructional support research. Few published studies address how an instructor might incorporate the skills of an academic coach in the online course. More information about how faculty deploy academic coaches as critical instructional support team members within online courses. More scholarly attention to best practices for utilizing the team approach for instructional support within online courses is needed.

Literature review

The Community of Inquiry (CoI) instrument is a valid, reliable measurement tool commonly used in research about online course delivery (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Avery et al., 2020). The CoI instrument measures cognitive, social, and teaching presence as reported by students. Cognitive presence (CP) is the meaning created by reflecting on course content and dialogue with fellow students. Social presence (SP) happens through communication within a protected environment. Teaching presence (TP) facilitates cognitive and social presence (Garrison et al., 2000, 2001). DeNoyelles et al. (2014) explains that CP, SP, and TP must all be present for a positive online course student experience. In a 2-year longitudinal study, students enrolled in courses taught using a co-teaching model with multiple instructors – a form of academic coaching – reported consistently higher ratings of SP, CP, and TP when compared to students enrolled in courses using the traditional one instructor teaching model Abbitt et al. (2018); Caskurlu et al. (2020) published a meta-analysis study that reported a moderately strong correlation between teaching presence and higher student satisfaction with the online course.

Instructional support for students

Besides teaching presence, there are multiple other factors impacting online student satisfaction. Lehan et al. (2018) compared student retention for online students who received academic coaching at an online learning center versus those who did not use a matched sample study (n = 160). Students who attended academic coaching sessions were 2.66 times more likely to remain in the program. Findings suggest that the online learning center offered critical academic assistance that a single online instructor could not provide to every student. Other research supported these results, where student-instructor engagement significantly contributed to student success and retention (Allison & Johnson, 2020; Bigatel & Edel-Malizia, 2018; Cho & Cho, 2014).

Impact of faculty support

Online instructors must deal with multiple demands within the online environment. Formative assessment and a sense of community are significant factors for meaningful student engagement in online courses Palloff & Pratt (2007); Kim et al. (2021) described how creating online instructional teams with specialized learning assistant roles supported online instructors with formative assessment and community building. In this study, online learning researchers (OLRs) and online instructional managers (OLMs) support the solo online instructor to meet the needs of a large and diverse student population. This research was based on the reality that online instructors do not often have undergraduate or graduate teaching assistants or effective models for deploying those resources. They assumed that using an instructional support team approach would increase the chance for students to receive prompt feedback, individualized attention, and guidance on their progress (Kim et al., 2021).

Foroughi et al. (2018) described the challenges of launching an accelerated MBA program. The transition to the accelerated format was due to increased student enrollment and an institutional shift to educational programs of shorter duration. The institution required accelerated courses to be developed based on Merrill’s Framework for effective course development. One of the framework’s ten principles speaks to the importance of feedback provided to the students. It was understood that learning is promoted when students are offered timely, clearly communicated, and consistent quality feedback (Foroughi et al., 2018). The MBA program incorporated academic coaches within their online courses for instructional support to provide prompt, valuable feedback. However, no model discussed the implementation of academic coaches. Each faculty member determined how many coaches to use, which coaches’ background was most appropriate for the course, and the coaches' responsibilities. The authors stated that the benefit of adding an academic coach to a course had to outweigh the risk, particularly if the coach was being used for the first time (Foroughi et al., 2018).

Instructional support also impacts online teaching satisfaction. Hampton et al. (2020) stated that instructor self-efficacy (SE) was the belief that the online instructor can “manage personal behaviors and cognitive processes for instructional effectiveness” (p. 302). This feeling of SE is considered necessary for success as an online instructor. The study findings suggested that instructional support is one extrinsic factor leading to increased SE in online teaching ability. The continued growth of online courses means more instructors with perceived online teaching SE are needed (Hampton et al., 2020).

Martin et al. (2019) completed eight interviews with award-winning online faculty to identify their perspectives on course design, assessment, evaluation, and facilitation practices. These faculty had received recent awards from the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), and the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA). The interviews addressed how these award-winning faculty designed courses, assessed student outcomes, completed evaluations, and facilitated their online courses. The interviewees agreed that adopting best practices and standards for online courses helped create a quality course with engaging content (Martin et al., 2019). Also agreed upon was the need for timely feedback and instructor availability and presence. Yet, there was no mention of how an instructional support team might help online instructors to achieve these quality benchmarks.

Herodotu et al. (2019) studied the use of online course predictive analytics to alert instructors about students who may not persist. The researchers concluded that predictive analytics could guide faculty to both an appropriate and timely intervention when a student is in danger of failing. However, using this data is challenging and time-consuming for the online instructor (Herodotu et al., 2019). Academic coaches could provide the support needed to free up time for instructor engagement with real-time predictive analytics.

The multiple demands of online teaching make it difficult for instructors to create and manage a highly interactive learning environment (Palloff & Pratt, 2007). Nevertheless, student achievement is known to improve with active engagement within a well-managed community of learners (Garrison, 2009). Employing an instructional support team approach should provide the assistance needed for better instructor engagement and management. This literature review reveals a gap in the research about the known best practices for using academic coaches, as members of the instructional support team, within the online course environment.

Research purpose

This research examined the attributes, behaviors, preferences, feelings, attitudes, opinions, and knowledge of faculty who use academic coaches for instructional support within the online course. The significance of this research is that the knowledge gained should provide needed guidance about best practices for using academic coaches as instructional support team members within the online course. Identifying best practices and quality standards exhibited by online faculty regarding utilizing academic coaches for instructional support in the online course should lead to valid benchmark information that can be used to guide faculty new to the team approach. Critical evidence can be disseminated regarding how an instructional team, including an academic coach, might work together most effectively.

Methodology

Research design

A sequential exploratory mixed methods research design was employed to address the research questions. This type of design aims to develop and apply a quantitative survey measure grounded in qualitative data; thus, two phases were completed (Creswell & Clark, 2018). During the first phase, qualitative semi-structured interviews of experienced online faculty were conducted and analyzed, and the second phase involved the distribution of a qualitative survey to a broader set of faculty members.

Participants

Participants for this research were faculty teaching online and using academic coaches for instructional support at a public Hispanic-Serving Institution in the southern United States. Eligible participants were solicited via convenience sampling methodology for both phases of this research.

Phase 1 qualitative participants

For the first phase, the inclusion criteria included faculty who had used, or were currently using, academic coaches for instructional support in high enrollment (>60 students per section) online courses, and who had taught in the 16-weeks semester. No exclusion criteria were applied. Secured virtual interviews were anonymously conducted by the research team, following an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved interview guide. Email invitations to participate in these interviews were sent to 36 eligible faculty currently teaching online and using academic coaches. A total of 14 faculty (N = 14) agreed to participate. Interview participants earned a $50 gift card (Table 1).

Table 1.

Interview participants demographics (N = 14).

Characteristics		Number of participants	Percentage of participants (%)
Gender	Female	13	86.6
Gender	Male	2	13.3
Years teaching online	Less than 5 years	7	50.0
	5–10 years	6	42.9
	11–15 years	1	7.1
Course Level(s)	Undergraduate only	11	78.6
Course Level(s)	Both undergraduate and graduate	3	21.4

Phase 2 quantitative participants

For the subsequent quantitative phase of this study, faculty participants included those who used coaches in either the 16-week or 7-week accelerated courses. The faculty who participated in the interview portion of this study were excluded from participation. Email invitations to complete the survey were sent to 45 eligible faculty. A total of 25 faculty (N = 25) completed the survey; for which there was no completion incentive. Approximately 80% of the faculty respondents taught non-STEM courses, which is representative of the number of online courses offered by the institution at which this research was conducted. All the survey data were collected anonymously. Table 2 describes the demographic information of the survey participants.

Table 2.

Survey participants demographics (N = 25).

Characteristics		Number of participants	Percentage of participants (%)
Gender	Female	11	44.0
	Male	13	52.0
	Prefer not to say	1	4.0
Ethnicity	Asian	3	12.0
	Black or African American	2	8.0
	Hispanic or Latino	7	28.0
	Prefer not to say	3	12.0
	White	10	40.0
Age	Did not say	1	4.0
	36–40	3	12.0
	41–45	2	8.0
	46–50	5	20.0
	51–55	3	12.0
	56–60	4	16.0
	61–65	7	28.0
Years teaching online	Less than 5 years	1	4.0
	5–10 years	11	44.0
	11–15 years	5	20.0
	16–20 years	4	16.0
	More than 20 years	4	16.0
Semesters utilizing coaches	1–5	2	8.0
	6–10	10	40.0
	11–15	4	16.0
	16–20	4	16.0
	21–25	4	16.0
	More than 40	1	4.0
Course level	Graduate	18	72.0
	Undergraduate	6	24.0
	Undergraduate and Graduate	1	4.0

Data collection and instruments

Phase 1 qualitative interview

Qualitative data were collected through 15 semi-structured interviews. The IRB approved interview guide was used for guidance. All interviews were conducted via secure Zoom links, with cameras off to protect participant identity. Each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis, as described in Brinkman and Kvale (2014), with the assistance of a graduate research assistant. After transcription verification, the qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software (ATLAS.ti.com, 2021).

Phase 2 quantitative survey

The instrument was designed using themes and categories identified in the qualitative data and gaps identified during phase 1. The researcher-created survey contained 30 questions; which included instructor background data, demographic information, and questions related to themes identified in phase 1. The survey was deployed using the Qualtrics platform (Qualtrics, 2020), and data were gathered anonymously.

Data analysis and results

Phase 1 qualitative results

The semi-structured interview data were coded in two cycles, first independently and then together as a research team, with the use of ATLAS.ti qualitative data analysis software. Open coding was used by the research team to independently analyze and compare small data segments. Codes were revisited in a search for relationships. Coding notes were kept by each researcher. The ATLAS.ti software diagramming feature provided qualitative visual representations of the data. Categories or themes emerged. Table 3 depicts the eight themes and supporting qualitative quotes.

Table 3.

Interview themes with supporting interviewee statements.

Theme	Supporting interviewee statements
Coach selection	“It was randomly assigned to me. I had no choice.”
	“Based on their qualifications, their understanding of anthropology, and any recommendations.”
	“I just keep asking for them, and you know, requesting to work with the same team of coaches and I’ve been very blessed that I’ve been able to do that.”
Coach student ratio	“I know from my large class, um, they are usually instructional connections, you know, makes those decisions.”
Coach student ratio	“The preferred student to coach ratio would be basically 100 students, anywhere from 75, you know.”
Faculty coach communication	“Pretty regularly, so we have the required meetings … I think it’s three per semester … and then you know … throughout the semester if they have any questions on an assignment or students emailing them with concerns that they can’t help them with, they’ll either email or text me.”
	“...they’ll either email or text me...”
	“…meet usually every 2 weeks over a zoom just check in … otherwise…had a constant stream of communication…through email.”
	“Generally, we opened by discussing any issues that are going on with the course or the students or, in some cases, the you know, the platform. And then we talk about grading expectations for whatever the larger projects are coming up, we talked about the division of labor[sic] we talked about kind of common issues that particular assignment may have and we talk about deadlines and when we expect work to be finished.”
	“Well, I use a lot of rubrics, so that helps. We all have the same rubric we all work off the same rubric and so that helps with the instructions. And then, otherwise I also communicate instructions verbally during conference calls I communicate them in a written aspect, when I email them.”
Coach responsibilities	“Mostly what their capacity is was graders for my courses also they read through students weekly discussion posts, and they provide feedback.”
Student communication	“I tend to address most of the student questions, and I set that standard, from the onset. … in other words, I’m point of contact, you know, first point of contact.”
Student communication	“It depends on the level of comfort that the coach has, and it also depends on the question. If it’s something simple that the coach can answer and feels comfortable doing versus something more substantial, they’ll usually forward it to me.”
Grading	“I’ll give like a couple of different examples of how I’ve graded assignments. Assignments that she will be grading as well, and I would typically give like an A, B, C, or D and the kind of feedback, I guess, like so that she can see exactly how I would do it, but also to have an idea so like I give a lot more feedback on certain assignments over others …”
	“First initial meeting that we have, I give them a rundown of the course. I give them the syllabus and the different assignments that we’re going to be doing, and I tell them how we’re going to be running the course, what I expect from them.”
	“What I usually do is I go to the grades, in the Grade Center, you can look at everybody’s individual grade. I will randomly select somebody and look over how they graded.”
	“In the instances where I have more than one coach per class, I run statistics per group to make sure that everybody looks to be right about the same area, to make sure that we are all on the same page.”
	“I, first of all, will go ahead and review whatever the complaint is about and see if I think that the coach was correct or not.”
Benefits	“…it allowed me to develop better tools for teaching like I was able to caption all of my lectures, and I feel like also develop meaningful assignments, and so having a coach frees up that time to do better development.”
Benefits	“It gives me time; it really provides me time to be able to focus on any student needs that are rising and time for research.”
Risks	“So, the risk, especially in the past was again the tone and everything, so when the students are giving you your evaluation, if these coaches have been mean.”

Theme 1: Coach selection

The first theme was how faculty selected coaches. The interviewees reported various ways in which they selected coaches to provide support in their online courses. The faculty reported that using coaches with subject matter expertise relevant to the course was very important. Faculty also stated that having a previous working relationship with the coach is helpful when selecting an academic coach. Lack of participation in the selection process was considered unhelpful.

Theme 2: Coach-student ratio

All the interviewed faculty reported that course enrollment directly impacted the amount of instructional support needed; however, there was no consensus about a specific coach-to-student ratio. Participants said the number of coaches required depended on enrollment and the type and level of course. The experience level of the academic coach was another consideration for faculty when determining a specific coach-to-student ratio.

Theme 3: Communication between coaches and faculty

The interviewees discussed how the frequency and type of communication with academic coaches were crucial for successful teamwork. These faculty members reported meetings with academic coaches before the course, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly, and sometimes more. All faculty felt that, at minimum, faculty should meet with academic coaches before the course begins and again at the mid-point of the course. The pre-course meeting was vital for relaying important information about the course flow and academic coach responsibilities. Additionally, these faculty stressed the importance of faculty and academic coaches working out a means of communication that is amenable and convenient for all involved. Various communication platforms were used, including phone, Zoom, and email with frequent check-ins recommended.

Theme 4: Responsibilities of coaches

Theme four is related to the responsibilities assigned to coaches by the course faculty. The primary responsibility reported was grading and providing feedback. Instructors must clearly communicate the which assessments academic coaches will grade and how they will be graded. Additional considerations were instructions regarding grading turnaround time.

Theme 5: Student communication

The fifth theme that emerged from the analysis involved student communication. Comments indicated that faculty using academic coaches must be clear about the approach and expectations regarding how and who would address student communication. Some faculty felt they needed to handle all student queries, while others felt student communication could be vetted by academic coaches and forwarded to faculty as necessary. Others reported a need for transparent communication and requested that students copy the academic coach and the faculty on all communication.

Theme 6: Grading

The sixth theme was related to grading. Related comments surrounded effective strategies to provide clear instructions to the academic coaches about how the instructor wanted them to grade. Giving the academic coaches detailed instructions and grading rubrics was essential for transparent grading. Faculty participants also spoke of how they ensured the reliability of grading done by coaches and how they handled student complaints about grading completed by coaches. Some participants said they completed random spot checks of grading done by coaches; others conducted statistical comparisons to ensure accuracy. Complaints about grading completed by coaches were typically handled by the course instructor, involving the academic coach when necessary.

Theme 7: Benefits of using a coach

The overwhelming majority of the faculty interviewed reported that more free time was the most significant benefit of using an academic coach for instructional support. More time to spend helping individuals or groups of students, improving the course through adding or updating content, and conducting research activities were beneficial to faculty.

Theme 8: Risks of using a coach

The last theme from the qualitative data analysis was the risks of using an academic coach. The faculty interviewed noted two risks to using an academic coach for instructional support: the potential impact on faculty evaluation scores and increased responsibility. The faculty reported how end-of-course student evaluations did not allow for differentiation between instructors and coaches. Therefore, a student who had an issue with an academic coach might use the faculty evaluation to report dissatisfaction with the result of the instructor of record being potentially negatively impacted. Other comments on risk discussed increased faculty responsibility when an academic coach is part of the instructional support team. A faculty member often agrees to a larger course enrollment when an academic coach is provided to help. This additional number of students increases the number of overall faculty responsibilities including academic coach guidance.

Phase 2 quantitative results

The qualitative results informed the questions created for the quantitative survey. The researcher-created survey consisted of 30 questions, which included demographic information. Participants were asked to choose from several prompts for most of the questions. Some of the questions were open-ended. For example, for the question, “Please describe what kind of assignments are graded by the coach(es) in your course(s),” one allowed response was, “Other, please describe.” The Qualtrics survey data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS. The results for participant survey responses, including relevant open-text comments, are reported in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4.

Survey data.

Survey question (Number of responses)	Prompts	Number of participants	Percentage (%)	Relevant open text comments (if applicable)
How do you select your academic coaches? Select all that apply (N = 25)	Chose coach(es) with whom I have previously worked.	20	80.0
	Examined resumes, chose coach(es) by subject matter expertise.	12	48.0
	Chosen for me, with my input.	11	44.0
	Examined resumes, chose coach(es) by relevant work experience.	9	36.0
	Chose coach(es) based on colleague recommendations.	9	36.0
	Chosen for me, with no input from me.	2	8.0
	Other, please describe	0	0.0
How do you determine the number of coaches you use in a course? (N = 25)	Based on the number of students. How many students to coach ratio?	12	48.0	“25”
				“30”
				“45”
				“50”
	Predetermined with no input from me.	10	40.0
	Based on the course complexity.	1	4.0
	Based on types of assignments or assessments given.	1	4.0
	Other, please describe	1	4.0	“I use only one coach per course, irrespective of the enrollment.”
Please identify communication tools used while working with your coach(es). Select all that apply. (N = 25)	Webinar (Zoom/Teams)	19	76.0
	Email	24	96.0
	Phone call	18	72.0
	Text	12	48.0
Please select communication frequency with your coach(es). (N = 25)	Mandatory meetings	19	76.0
	Weekly	15	60.0
	Monthly	3	12.0
	As needed	5	20.0
	2 weeks	1	4.0
What expectations do you provide coach(es) in responding to students’ posts? (n = 14)	Grading is aligned with rubric and provides constructive feedback.	6	42.8
	Clear and consistent communication.	3	21.4
	Acknowledge student’s view.	2	14.3
	Timeliness, provide support.	2	14.3
	Other, please describe	1	7.1	“Not hard and fast rules on this.”
Please describe how many assignments are graded by the coach(es) in your courses? (N = 25)	Coach(es) do all (100%) the grading in my courses.	0	0.0
	Coach(es) do most of the grading (90-99%) in my courses.	6	24.0
	Coach(es) do 75–89% of the grading in my courses.	3	12.0
	Coach(es) do 50–74% of the grading in my courses.	8	32.0
	Coach(es) do 25–49% of the grading in my courses.	2	8.0
	Coach(es) do less than 25% of the grading in my courses.	4	16.0
	None of the above, please describe	2	8.0	“My coach grade weekly quizzes; I grade term papers.”
	None of the above, please describe	2	8.0	“Coaches review for APA and writing errors, I grade every paper. They grade discussions.”
Please describe what kind of assignments are graded by the coach(es) in your course(s)? (N = 25)	Coach(es) only grade low stakes assignments in my courses.	9	36.0
	Coach(es) only grade high stakes assignments in my courses.	0	0.0
	Coach(es) grade all the assignments in my courses.	9	36.0
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“No grading, just reviewing for writing quality, except they grade discussions.”
				“They grade projects that I have rubrics for while I explain the rubrics clearly to the coach.”
				“Discussion boards and only provide initial review other assignments”
	Coach(es) grade a mix of low and high stakes, depends on course.	4	16.0
Which best describes your grading contribution? (N = 25)	I grade along with my coach(es) for each assignment. For example, I grade 10% of all submissions for each assignment.	5	20.0
	I grade along with my coach(es) for some of the assignments.	6	24.0
	They only grade discussion forums.	3	12.0
	We split assignments that need grading.	2	8.0
	I grade all high-stake assignments; coaches grade all low stakes assignments.	3	12.0
	Coaches do all the grading; I review their work.	3	12.0
	None of the above, please describe	4	16.0	“I grade exams.”
	None of the above, please describe	4	16.0	“I grade the first or last 10 quizzes, and I will grade some discussion boards at random.”
Which of the following do you provide your coaches to facilitate grading? (N = 25)	Detailed grading rubrics	17	68.0
	Sample feedback	1	4.0
	Examples of student work representative of A, B, C, D grades	0	0.0
	All of the above	5	16.0
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“APA Resources & Expectations”
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“What to look for in each question and points to deduct based on what the student is missing.”
How do you provide coaches grading instructions? (N = 25)	Email	8	32.0
	Via conference call	8	32.0
	Via conference call followed up by email	8	32.0
	All the above	1	4.0
What methods do you use to verify the grading completed by coach(es) is accurate? (N = 25)	General review or spot checks of student submissions.	14	56.0
	Grade a specific number/percentage of student submissions. How many do you grade?	5	20.0	“10%”
				“100%”
				“100% papers, review discussions”
	I do not feel verification grading done by coach(es) is necessary.	3	12.0
	Other method, please describe	3	12.0	“Only if contacted by student.”
				“Review graded discussions.”
				“I verify consistency across coaches which indicates fidelity of the rubric.”
If you have more than one coach, describe methods used to check coach grading consistency. (n = 18)	Spot checks review of grade ranges per coach.	8	44.4
	Statistical examination of grade ranges per coach. For example, inter-rater reliability.	3	16.6
	I do not feel verification of grading consistency among coach(es) is necessary.	0	0.0
	Other, please describe	2	38.8	“I provide detailed guidelines.”
	Other, please describe	2	38.8	“Typically, not something I do, but I see the value.”
What do you do when a student complains about a grade earned for an assignment a coach has graded? (N = 25)	Ask the coach to review grading and have them address student complaint.	3	12.0
	Regrade the assignment myself, and address student complaint directly.	5	20.0
	Review grade and feedback given by coach, and address student complaint directly.	12	48.0
	All the above.	2	8.0
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“1 had no issue.”
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“1 stated they also looked to see if complaint is genuine.”
If you find a grading error, what do you do? (N = 25)	I update the grade and notify the coach and student.	11	44.0
	I ask the coach to update the grade/feedback and then notify the student.	9	36.0
	I update the grade and notify only the student.	2	8.0
	I update the grade and ask the coach to notify the student.	0	0.0
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“No issues.”
	Other, please describe	3	12.0	“I have done the first three examples, depending on the situation.”

Table 5.

Perceived Benefits and Risks of Utilizing Coaches based upon a 5-point Likert Scale (5 = Definitely yes; 1 = Definitely not).

Statement	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
Benefits to using coach(es) for instructional support.	25	1	5	4.60	1.000
Risks to using coach(es) for instructional support.	24	1	5	2.63	1.313

Discussion

The data analysis suggests defined themes and practices related to faculty best practices for using an academic coach as a member of the instructional support team.

Coach selection and ratio

Choosing an academic coach and determining the coach-to-student ratio were identified as essential faculty considerations. Study participants selected instructional coaches based on their prior interactions or by examining resumes and selecting those with subject matter or related professional experience. Surprisingly, in this study’s qualitative and survey phases, some instructors reported that academic coaches were assigned without their input. In a few cases, faculty were assigned the course late, and department personnel had already requested academic coaches to meet deadlines. It was important for faculty to have input into choosing academic coaches that had subject matter expertise or with whom they had previously worked. Past research has shown that online teaching takes more time than is often acknowledged in teaching workloads, and appropriate instructional support measures should be in place (Gulinna et al., 2022; Puksa & Janzen, 2020).

Faculty-coach-student communication

Communication was an identified trend significant throughout the instructional support team deployment steps. Participants reported that clear and consistent communication between faculty and academic coaches was also essential. Faculty should provide academic coaches with stated expectations before a course begins and establish a regular communication pattern and method. At a minimum, instructors should schedule a pre-course, a mid-course, and an end-of-course meeting, along with making themselves available when needed to address questions. Many participants in this study reported meeting with academic coaches much more frequently – sometimes weekly. These meetings took place in various formats including email, webinars, or phone/text messages. Building the mentor-mentee relationship, even virtually, is essential to relay course objectives, content, associated tasks, and grading responsibilities (Hendon and Bledsoe, 2022). An open line of communication should create an environment where academic coaches feel supported and comfortable sharing ideas and feedback. A strong instructor-teaching assistant relationship is thought to provide a solid foundation for an online course (Harrington et al., 2022).

Established clear communication is also vital between the instructional team and students. In an online course, where a team approach to instruction is being used, students need to understand with whom they should communicate when a problem or concern arises. Participants in this study sometimes asked students to contact the course faculty for help, while others asked students to contact coaches. Others used a hybrid approach and asked students to include the course faculty and the academic coach in any communication for complete transparency. Whether the instructor or the acaademic coach was the main point of contact was up to the instructor’s discretion. Overall, active communication was key in faculty-coach-student relationships. Faculty-coach-student relationships connect students, improve engagement, and increase course rigor, creating a caring culture in the online environment (Pacansky-Brock et al., 2020). Active contact with students is a key element of embracing kindness in teaching (Lesoki, 2022). Regardless of the student communication approach, laying the groundwork for an environment where students feel enhanced teacher presence has been found to improve student engagement and satisfaction in the online course (Ng, 2019).

Grading responsibilities and accuracy

Grading responsibilities and how to oversee accuracy were essential themes identified by both the interviewees and survey respondents. Faculty must clarify the academic coaches’ expectations on grading assessments and the appropriate evaluation measures. The need for clear grading rubrics for every assessment was identified as a necessary best practice. Academic coaches should also be informed about the assessments they will be grading and how they fit into the course. In both phases of this study, most respondents utilized academic coaches to participate in and grade discussion board assignments. Formal papers, group projects, and examinations were other assessments academic coaches were tasked to provide grading support. Much literature has been published about the use of teaching assistants in undergraduate face-to-face courses; however, similar instructional support within the online course has been minimally described (Parker et al., 2015). The role of the academic coach in the online course has yet to be clearly defined.

The results for both research phases indicated faculty asked academic coaches to grade all types of assessments, including those considered high stake assignments. In the survey phase, 36% of the respondents reported that academic coaches graded all types of assignments, while 32% responded that academic coaches only graded low-stakes assignments. High-stakes assignments require more student time and effort, thus typically carrying more weight toward the final grade. Low-stakes assignments require less student time and effort and do not heavily impact a student’s final grade (Bain, 2004).

In addition to the types of assessments academic coaches are asked to grade, the online faculty member must carefully contemplate the amount of grading requested of academic coaches. The faculty participants in this study graded along with their academic coaches and reported they graded between 50–74% of the total number of assessments. Conversely, 26% of our respondents stated that the academic coaches graded between 90-99% of the assessments. Online course faculty should also consider how many hours an academic coach spends grading per week. In other words, realistic expectations of the academic coach must be established in terms of the amount of grading to be completed by academic coaches and the required turnaround time for posting grades. As one interviewee stated, “Don’t ask a coach to do anything you wouldn’t do.” Grading responsibilities – like other obligations such as fielding emails or supporting discussions – have been determined to be a best practice when an online instructor seeks to define a teaching assistant’s role (Harrington et al., 2022).

A determination of the grading accuracy completed by academic coaches was identified as a necessity by the participants in this study. Survey questions were specifically designed to explore how faculty determined academic coach grading accuracy based on the information learned from the qualitative semi-structured interviews. Survey participants were asked how they verified accuracy if more than one academic coach worked within a course and how they ensured grading consistency among coaches. Over half of the survey participants reported they completed routine spot checks of work graded by coaches to verify accuracy. Some of the survey participants (n = 4) indicated they graded a specific number or a percentage of the assignments to verify grading accuracy. In online courses where teaching assistants have grading responsibilities, the course instructor needs to provide targeted coaching and feedback specifically for the grading process (Harrington et al., 2022).

Lastly, faculty must consider how to manage any possible grading issues. For example, if a student complains about a grade issued by an academic coach, the online faculty member must have a process to handle the complaints. Of the survey participants, 44% stated that if a student complained about a grade, the faculty reviewed the work, updated the grade as necessary, and notified the coach and student. However, 36% of the survey respondents requested that the coach review and update the grade and then inform the student. Schacter (2021) pointed out that student frustration about grading often stems from a misunderstanding. Approaching students with empathy can build trust and the opportunity to come to a mutually agreeable conclusion regarding grading that still prioritizes student learning.

Benefits

In the qualitative phase of this study, interviewees reported the primary benefit of using an academic coach was increased free time. Faculty reported utilizing this extra time to interact with students, improve course design, and conducting research. Survey results supported the qualitative findings in that 80% of the participants reported that “definitely yes” there was a benefit to faculty when they used academic coaches for instructional support within their online courses. Historically, online instructional design theory has promoted the need for an interactive and collaborative online adult learning community framework (Snyder, 2009). Faculty satisfaction with teaching online has been related to support and collaboration with other faculty (Badia et al., 2019; Brown & Thomas, 2020). The assistance provided by academic coaches should result in increased faculty satisfaction, improved course design and rigor, and overall productivity.

Risks

The interviewees within the qualitative phase of this study felt the primary risk for the faculty who used academic coaches for instructional support in the online course was twofold. First was the potential impact on faculty evaluation scores, which could impact the annual institutional process of teaching evaluation. Secondly, interviewees felt that deploying an instructional team approach using an academic coach increased faculty responsibility in terms of oversight. It is important to note that during this question, interviewees spoke in hypotheticals. Example quotes include “the only problems would be if they...” and “The risks, I would say would be that you might have a coach that maybe kind of doesn’t see eye to eye.” In the survey results, 54% of respondents felt there was no risk in using an academic coach for instructional support, and 26% felt there were potential risks. No data were collected from participants about the amount or nature of professional development in online teaching strategies in this study. It is unknown if the less experienced online faculty perceived a higher level of risk to the use of academic coaches when compared to experienced online faculty. The collection of additional data for further investigation of the relationship between perceived risk to using instructional support is warranted.

Limitations and ethical considerations

This study about how academic coaches can be effectively utilized for instructional support within online courses involved many variables, some of which were difficult to measure. Additionally, the generalizability of this research is limited due to the data being gathered at one institution. However, to improve generalizability, the trustworthiness of the qualitative data was promoted through independent and collective coding of the data. With respect to the quantitative data analysis process, the number of respondents for the survey was limited and found to be suitable only for descriptive analysis. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for all research processes.

Implications for practice and future research

The results of this mixed methods study have laid the groundwork for a better understanding of the best practices related to the utilization of instructional support services provided by academic coaches within online courses. Information gleaned from these results should provide the foundation for creating a guide that faculty could use to self-evaluate their use of academic coaches for online instructional support. Such self-evaluation would provide a much-needed best-practice resource. In general, faculty members who use academic coaches might need to be made aware of the myriad of ways in which they can be employed. These results also provide a foundation for the future creation of a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate the application and use of academic coaches for online instructional support. Further research is needed to gain academic coaches’ perceptions of effective practices.

Conclusion

This study presented qualitative and quantitative research results seeking to examine the attributes, behaviors, preferences, feelings, attitudes, opinions, and knowledge reported by online faculty who use academic coaches as members of an instructional support team. The research identified effective strategies related to the successful integration of an academic coach within an online course. Findings from this study warrant more rigorous research on the effective implementation and comparisons of various ways to deploy academic coaches within the online course. As online enrollment surges, faculty members face the challenge of balancing student success with the implementation of a rigorous curriculum in an environment that fosters diverse perspectives and the pursuit of higher learning.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported by Instructional Connections Small Research Grant Program IC_IC (IC_Project_34000482).

ORCID iDs

Tracia M Forman

Jessica M Sanchez

Author Biographies

Dr. Tracia M Forman holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Nursing from the University of Texas at Tyler. Currently, she is an Assistant Professor in the Master of Science in Health Sciences Program at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. With a background in higher education, she adeptly engages both undergraduate and graduate students through a blend of in-person and online teaching methodologies. Dr. Forman's expertise extends to quality assurance as a Master Reviewer for Quality Matters™, and she holds credentials as a Certified Nurse Educator from the National League for Nursing (NLN) and in Informatics Nursing from the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC).

Dr Jessica M Sanchez, has been in the field of e-learning since 2001 and is the Associate Director for the Center for Online Learning & Teaching Technology. She has taught in the Masters of Educational Technology program and recieved her EdD in Curriculum and Instruction Specialization in Educational Technology.

References

Abbitt

Watt

Boone

(2018) A comparison of independent and collaborative instructional models in a blended graduate teacher education program. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning 16(1): 1–20.

Allison

Johnson

(2020) I’ve been there! Fostering student academic leadership in the online environment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 23(3): 1–5.

Arbaugh

Cleveland-Innes

Diaz

, et al. (2008) Developing a community of inquiry instrument: testing a measure of the Community of Inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. The Internet and Higher Education 11(3-4): 133–136. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003

ATLAS.ti.com (2021) Qualitative data analysis software. ATLAS.ti. Available at: https://atlasti.com/.

Avery

Makos

Sarguroh

, et al. (2020) This is why we do it: using a design based approach to optimize student learning in an online discussion based course. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education 35(1): 1–35.

Badia

Garcia

Meneses

(2019) Emotions in response to teaching online: exploring the factors influencing teachers in a fully online university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56(4): 446–457.

Bain

(2004) What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bigatel

Edel-Malizia

(2018) Predictors of instructor practices and course activities that engage students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 21(1).

Bonfield

Salter

Longmuir

, et al. (2020) Transformation or evolution? Education 4.0, teaching and learning in the digital age. Higher Education Pedagogies 5(1): 223–246. DOI: 10.1080/23752696.2020.1816847

10.

Brinkman

Kvale

(2014) Doing Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

11.

Brown

Thomas

(2020) Technology used to support learning in groups. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education 35(1): 1–34.

12.

Caskurlu

Maeda

Richardson

, et al. (2020) A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers & Education 157: 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103966

13.

Center for Teaching and Learning (n.d.) How do I work effectively with teaching assistants? University of Massachusetts Amherst.. Available at: https://www.umass.edu/ctl/resources/how-do-i/how-do-i-involve-tas-learning-process.

14.

Cho

(2014) Instructor scaffolding for interaction and students' academic engagement in online learning: mediating role of perceived online class goal structures. The Internet and Higher Education 21: 25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.008

15.

Creswell

Clark

(2018) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

16.

DeNoyelles

Mannheimer

Chen

(2014) Strategies for creating a community of inquiry through online asynchronous discussions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10(1): 153–165.

17.

Foroughi

Smothers

Bačić

, et al. (2018) Launching an accelerated online MBA program: Assuring quality with scale, based on principles of effective course design. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice 18(6): 58–71. DOI: 10.33423/jhetp.v18i6.149

18.

Garrison

(2009) Communities of inquiry in online learning. In: Rogers

(ed) Encyclopedia of Distance Learning. 2nd edition. City: IGI Global, 352–360.

19.

Garrison

Anderson

Archer

(2000) Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3): 87–105.

20.

Garrison

Anderson

Archer

(2001) Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 7–23.

21.

Gulinna

Xie

Korkmaz

(2022) Factors influencing faculty’s online teaching decisions. Distance Education 43(3): 426–443. DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2022.2088474

22.

Hampton

Culp-Roche

Hensley

, et al. (2020) Self-efficacy and satisfaction with teaching in online courses. Nurse Educator 45(6): 302–306. DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000805

23.

Harrington

Myers

Milman

(2022) Working with and supporting teaching Assistants of asynchronous, online courses. Distance Learning 19(2): 125–130.

24.

Hendon

Bledsoe

(2022) Mentoring new online graduate teaching assistants: from concept to practice. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 30(5): 566–583. DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2022.2127256

25.

Herodotou

Hlosta

Boroowa

, et al. (2019) Empowering online teachers through predictive learning analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology 50(6): 3064–3079. DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12853

26.

Kim

Rezende

Eadie

, et al. (2021) Responsive teaching in online learning environments: using an instructional team to promote formative assessment and a sense of community. Journal of College Science Teaching 50(4): 17–24.

27.

Lehan

Hussey

Shriner

(2018) The influence of academic coaching on persistence in online graduate students. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning 26(3): 289–304. DOI: 10.1080/13611267.2018.1511949

28.

Lesoski

(2022) Embracing kindness and setting boundaries in online teaching. National Teaching & Learning Forum 31(4): 3–4. DOI: 10.1002/ntlf.30327

29.

Martin

Ritzhaupt

Kumar

, et al. (2019) Award-winning faculty online teaching practices: course design, assessment and evaluation, and facilitation. The Internet and Higher Education 42: 34–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001

30.

(2019) Shifting the focus from motivated learners to motivating distributed environments: a review of 40 years of published motivation research in “distance education”. Distance Education 40(4): 469–496.

31.

Pacansky-Brock

Smedshammer

Vincent-Layton

(2020) Humanizing online teaching to equitize Higher Education. Current Issues in Education 21(2): 1–21.

32.

Palloff

Pratt

(2007) Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. 2nd edition. San Fransico: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

33.

Parker

Ashe

Boersma

, et al. (2015) Good teaching starts here: applied learning at the graduate teaching assistant institute. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 45(3): 84–110. DOI: 10.47678/cjhe.v45i3.187546

34.

Puksa

Janzen

(2020) Faculty perceptions of teaching nursing content online in prelicensure baccalaureate nursing programs. The Journal of Nursing Education 59(12): 683–691. DOI: 10.3928/01484834-20201118-05

35.

Qualtrics (2020) Qualtrics XM. Provo, UT. Available at: https://www.qualtrics.com.

36.

Schacter

Brown S, Daugherty A , et al (2021) Creating a compassionate classroom. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/12/01/compassionate-teaching-yields-most-benefits-opinion.

37.

Snyder

(2009) Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning 53(1): 48–56.

38.

Whitford

(2021) Spring enrollment keeps slipping [Blog Post]. Inside Higher Ed. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/11/colleges-continue-losing-undergraduate-enrollment-spring-even-graduate-enrollment.

Effective utilization of academic coaches for instructional support in online courses

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature review

Instructional support for students

Impact of faculty support

Research purpose

Methodology

Research design

Participants

Phase 1 qualitative participants

Phase 2 quantitative participants

Data collection and instruments

Phase 1 qualitative interview

Phase 2 quantitative survey

Data analysis and results

Phase 1 qualitative results

Theme 1: Coach selection

Theme 2: Coach-student ratio

Theme 3: Communication between coaches and faculty

Theme 4: Responsibilities of coaches

Theme 5: Student communication

Theme 6: Grading

Theme 7: Benefits of using a coach

Theme 8: Risks of using a coach

Phase 2 quantitative results

Discussion

Coach selection and ratio

Faculty-coach-student communication

Grading responsibilities and accuracy

Benefits

Risks

Limitations and ethical considerations

Implications for practice and future research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References