Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

CLOUD-BASED TECHNOLOGIES: FACULTY

DEVELOPMENT, SUPPORT, AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Veronica Diaz, PhD
Associate Director, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative
EDUCAUSE

ABSTRACT
The number of instructional offerings in higher education that are online, blended, or web-enhanced,
including courses and programs, continues to grow exponentially. Alongside the growth of e-learning,
higher education has witnessed the explosion of cloud-based or Web 2.0 technologies, a term that refers
to the vast array of socially oriented, free or nearly free, web-based tools, has represented a transition
from institutionally-provided to freely available technology tools. This paper addresses the numerous
teaching and learning opportunities and challenges that institutions face in adopting and implementing
cloud-based technologies into their eLearning programs and provides a guide for forming implementation
decisions.

KEYWORDS
Cloud-based, Web 2.0 technologies, implementation

I. INTRODUCTION
The number of instructional offerings in higher education that are online, blended, or web-enhanced,
including courses and programs, continues to grow exponentially. According to a recent Sloan report on
online education in the U.S., over 5.6 million students were taking at least one online course during the
fall 2009 term; an increase of nearly one million students over the number reported the previous year [1].
The report also shows that the twenty-one percent growth rate for online enrollments far exceeds the less
than two percent growth of the overall higher education student population and nearly thirty percent of
higher education students now take at least one course online. Institutions are becoming more focused and
experienced with e-learning delivery options and are learning how to more effectively support learners
and faculty members in these environments.
Alongside the growth of e-learning, higher education has witnessed the explosion of cloud-based or Web
2.0 technologies [2], a term that refers to the vast array of socially oriented, free or nearly free, web-based
tools, has represented a transition from institutionally-provided to freely available technology tools. For
instance, in the past, institutions may have offered enrolled students server space to host a personal
website or store instructional content. Now, students can use Google™ for those purposes and others,
before, during, and after they are affiliated with any institution. Although offering many instructional
opportunities, the emergence and proliferation of cloud-based tools has widened the gap between faculty
member and student use of technology and has also presented some support and faculty development
difficulties. This paper addresses the numerous teaching and learning opportunities and challenges that
institutions face in adopting and implementing cloud-based technologies into their eLearning programs.

95 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1

Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

II. WHAT ARE WEB 2.O OR WEB-BASED TECHNOLOGIES?

Web 2.0 and other emerging technologies such as blogs, wikis, social networking sites, photo- and video-
sharing sites, and folksonomies enhance e-learning programs. A recent study [2] of undergraduate student
use of information technology found that about 25% of learners across all institutional types were
engaged in the use of Web 2.0 tools including wikis, blogs, and social bookmarking, among others (see
Table 1). Some students chose these tools for themselves, while instructors assigned others to them. Some
learners reported using the tools for entertainment or socializing, an increasing number reported use
connected with instructional activities, especially collaboration.

Web-Based Technology Use in Courses Percentage Percentage of

Using Users Using the
Technology Technology to
Collaborate in
Courses
Web-based word processor, spreadsheet, presentation, and form 36.2% 53.0
applications (Google Docs, iWork, Microsoft Office Live
Workspace, Zoho, etc.)
Wikis (Wikipedia, course wiki, etc.) 33.1% 30.7
Social networking websites (Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, LinkedIn, 29.4% 49.4
etc.)
College textbook resource websites (Pearson, PrenticeHall, 26.1 23.2
McGraw-Hill)
Video-sharing websites (YouTube, etc.) 24.3% 33.4
Web-based calendars (Google Calendar, etc.) 17.4% NA
Web-based citation/bibliography tools (CiteULike, OttoBib, etc.) 17.2% 16.9
Blogs 11.6% 37.6
College study support (Cramster, Turnitin, Essay Checker, 10.9% NA
ShareNotes, etc.)
Photo-sharing websites (Flickr, Snapfish, Picasa, etc.) 5.4% 32.9
Micro-blogs (Twitter, etc.) 4.3% 40.2
Online virtual worlds (Second Life, Forterra, etc.) 1.4% 29.4
Social bookmarking/tagging (Delicious, Digg, Newsvine) 2.8 30.5
Table 1. Students Using Web-Based Technologies in Courses the Quarter/Semester of the Survey [2]

Web-based tools, in many ways, further support a trend that began with the emergence of the Internet: a
shift away from large organizational control of the instructional function toward the individual user, both
faculty member and learner. These emerging technologies, not necessarily created for higher education
consumption, support and require individual creativity and autonomy and foster the growing trend toward
user-generated content and knowledge in a way that many institutionally developed products do not. Part
of the rapid proliferation of these tools in higher education can be attributed to their ease of use and the
opportunity they present for low or no cost instructional innovation in a time of shrinking budgets.
Faculty members and learners no longer need to wait for a learning/course management system to
develop and implement a tool, for an institution to purchase a license to use images, or for a streaming
media server because many of these needs can now be met externally through a variety of Web 2.0 tools.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1 96

 Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

Although thousands of these tools exist in the virtual world, several issues exist in actually implementing
them in an instructional environment. Although implementation is not without its challenges, some
important reasons may justify doing so. A recent report on 21st century skills identifies several areas
relevant and critical to a service economy: creativity and innovation skills, critical thinking and problem-
solving skills, communication and collaboration skills [3]. Over the last several decades, our industrial
economy based on manufacturing has shifted to a service economy driven by information, knowledge and
innovation. Further, to be effective in the 21st century, citizens and workers must be able to exhibit a
range of functional and critical thinking skills, such as information literacy, media literacy, and
information, communications and technology (ICT) literacy. The demand for these new skills can be
connected to some of the affordances of Web 2.0 tools: active engagement, knowledge creation,
independent learning, reflection, and innovation.
Many faculty members correctly assert that while today’s students do in fact enter our institutions having
had some exposure to Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook,™ they lack an awareness of how those tools can
be used for learning. On the other hand, faculty members may have noticed that entering students have a
heightened comfort level in existing in the type of digital environment that has the potential to be
connected with learning. For instance, students tend to have a greater tolerance for figuring out,
troubleshooting or experimenting with technology. They can deal with a trial and error approach to tool
use and change in general and often have had a broad exposure to a variety of different web based
software and hardware tools. All these affordances translate into several valuable skills and abilities that
can be leveraged in the learning experience: problem solving, critical thinking and the ability to use a
menu of learning options. And lastly, the burden to support students in the use of new technologies is
reduced, making it possible to have experimentation and innovation in learning. Not unlike other skills
that students bring to the learning experience, developing the skill to use emerging technologies for
instruction merits the effort that is required to repurpose or harness them to advance learning.
One challenge is the sheer volume of tools that exist with no simple way to narrow the search process for
a faculty member looking to select and implement one. This is especially true for the novice user who
may not be familiar with the Web 2.0 vernacular. Generally, Web 2.0 tools can be classified into a few
categories: communicative, collaborative, documentative, generative and interactive. The table below can
serve as a preliminary organizer of the instructional purpose that these tools may serve.

Web 2.0 Tool Type Instructional Purpose Examples

Communicative To share ideas, information, and Blogs
creations Audio blogs
Video blogs
IM-type tools
Podcasts
Video chat
Collaborative Editing/writing tools
To work with others for a specific
Virtual communities of practice
purpose in a shared work area
Wikis
Documentative Blogs
To collect and/or present Videoblogs
evidence of experiences, thinking
over time, productions, etc. E-portfolios
Wikis
Generative To create something new that can Mashups
be seen and/or used by others Virtual communities of practice

97 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1

Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

Virtual Learning Worlds

Interactive To exchange information, ideas, Learning objectives
resources, materials Social bookmarking
Virtual communities of practice
Virtual worlds
Table 2. Web 2.0 Tool Classifications

As mentioned earlier, Web 2.0 tools were not primarily designed for higher education and certainly not as
learning/course management systems (LCMSs), but some faculty members have identified tools that can
address many of the commercial LMS functions and serve as portals to other tools otherwise not
available. For instance, netvibes™ is a free web service that aggregates various media sources and online
services such as blogs, news, weather, videos, photos, social networks, email and others. Another similar
tool is Ning™, which allows for the integration of various social networking tools including a forum, blog
and calendaring. In the past few years, higher education has experienced many changes in course
management systems. Some systems have been acquired by other vendors as is the case with WebCT™
and Angel™. The increasing cost of commercial products has prompted many institutions to consider
open source systems, which are usually implemented with the assistance of third party software
development entities that support the development and modification of such systems. In recent years, the
LMS landscape has become more diverse in response to the growing number of tools and systems
available. Not only do each of these options have very different associated cost structures, but perhaps
more importantly, they each have a broad range of control options. Table 3 below illustrates ways in
which the three most common systems vary in their ability to be modified from their original
configuration or setup, and the degree of support that the tool itself as well as users, both faculty members
and students, need.

Product Type Control/Modification Tool Support User Support

Ability Level Level
Commercial Product Low/Low Low High
(Desire2Learn, Blackboard)
Open Source Product (Sakai, High/High High High
Moodle)
Web 2.0 Product (netvibes, Ning) Low/High Low Low
Table 3. Learning/Course Management System: Adaptability and Support Considerations
As evidenced in the table above, there are significant pros and cons inherent in the more established
course support options, perhaps shedding some light as to why web-based tools are becoming more
popular in the higher education community. Despite their many benefits, however, web-based tools
present some institutional challenges as well. In the past, faculty members and learners had few, if any,
choices on how to create and manage a virtual learning environment. When the Internet first became
available, early adopters created html web pages, but many others used nothing at all. Later, the
emergence of the learning/course management system enabled less technologically savvy faculty
members to create a virtual presence with little or no technology skills. Web-based tools, many of which
are primarily used by experimenters and early adopters, place control of the learning environment with
the individual user, both faculty member and learner. These tools present a diverse menu of teaching and
learning options that are in the complete control of the individual who will be using them. Institutionally
selected and developed products can sometimes alienate and confine the user to very limited instructional
environments and possibilities.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1 98

 Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

Perhaps the most striking opportunity that web-based tools offer is for the learner, who has traditionally
not participated in any decisions relating to their learning environment. Many tools empower and enable
students to choose, virtually create, collaborate, share, network and publicize as they see fit,
independently of an institution. For instance, by using the vast array of Google™ products students can
work on documents collaboratively with other students, create personal websites, store content, and
manage email and calendars. Another reason that students are increasingly exploring and using Web 2.0
tools and products is the portability that these options afford them. Over the course of an education a
student will produce a significant amount of content, much of which they will likely want to reference
while in their next educational course, program, institution, or place of employment. Many proprietary
tools do allow content to be easily exported or removed, making the use of a non-affiliated or supported
tool a desirable option.
III. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND CLOUD-BASED
TECHNOLOGIES
A final, but critical consideration in selecting and supporting the use of Web 2.0 tools in any learning
environment is to have a well-developed institutional faculty development program that includes some
mechanism for quality assurance. Encouraging or requiring faculty members to complete some training
before delivering a technology-mediated course, especially as it relates to the use and role of technology,
is an important first step. If an instructor has taught in an online or hybrid environment for many years,
she or he might be encouraged to participate in some form of course review process. An example of a
widely used quality assurance process is Quality Matters. Quality Matters is a faculty-centered, peer
review process designed to improve the quality of online courses and online components. This rubric as
well as other similar locally-developed tools are designed to offer faculty members a systematic and
comprehensive approach by which to review their courses and check for things such as the clarity of
learning objectives, assessment and measurement tools, resources and materials used to support the
learner, learner engagement, and technology used to support desired learning outcomes. Implementing
quality assurance can be especially important in supporting faculty members to use Web 2.0 tools in a
way that is aligned with their course objectives and closely connected to achieving student learning
outcomes.
Locally hosting and implementing web 2.0 tools outside of a CMS is an option that provides the desired
functionality with institutional support, privacy and control. Penn State’s Educational Technology
Services, for instance, support locally-hosted blogs, wikis, and podcasting services for teaching and
learning. Arizona State University’s implementation of Google Apps is another example where learners
have access to iGoogle, Google’s portal, in addition to applications including email, calendar, chat, sites,
and docs.
Another possibility is to support learner use of Web 2.0 tools, while still using institutionally supported
systems for course management. For instance, learners could be encouraged to use blogs to document
their academic experience, study abroad trip, or reflect on coursework. Or, they could use wikis to support
team-based learning, collaborative project work, or track and display their academic accomplishments as
with an ePortfolio. Alternatively, social bookmarking and RSS feeds could be used to support student
research.

IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF CLOUD-BASED TECHNOLOGIES:

SUPPORTING INNOVATION
Before adopting any learning technology tool, Web 2.0 and others, institutions are well served to collect
data about their students and students’ use of technology. The EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research
Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology is a good example of a survey instrument
that can be used or adapted to assess students’ ownership of, use of, and skill level with information

99 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1

Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

technology, information technology and the learning/academic experience and their current use of web-
based tools and other emerging technologies. Considering the increasingly greater budget portions that
institutions are allocating to the support of learning and information technologies, it is critical to evaluate
on an annual basis what existing tools and services, as well as future tools and services, need to be
supported.
The rise of user-generated content and the ability to conduct teaching and learning functions outside of
the institutional purview raises the importance of corresponding intellectual property issues that exist.
Pre-eLearning intellectual property policies typically addressed ownership of traditionally copyrighted
materials such as books, articles, and other conventional academic products. In an online environment,
course materials take on a greater presence than in a traditional one. In a physical classroom, an instructor
can meet with students and have no materials beyond class notes and a text, yet he or she can still deliver
the course. In cyberspace, this becomes more difficult. Course materials begin to embody or encapsulate
many of the processes of the physical classroom. In the digital setting, it is possible to unbundle course
materials and realize the potential profit for each one separately or together as a package. Authority over
instructional products and responsibility regarding development and maintenance spurred institutions to
revisit existing intellectual property policies, especially those that did not address important emerging
questions and conflicts in these areas.
Instructional control and production processes, especially in the online environment, have been
transferred to the faculty and learners and away from the institution. As teaching and learning activity
increased with the growth in hybrid and online delivery models, intellectual property policies changed to
address and capture the new area of instructional product development. Online and blended learning
delivery models have already changed the way faculty members and institutions regard ownership and
control of instructional products, but the emergence and proliferation of Web 2.0 tools will surely spur on
a second wave of institutional intellectual property policy reviews.
In the mid to late 1990s, institutions began to revise their intellectual property policies for several reasons.
With the rise of eLearning, new markets emerged for digital instructional products, many that had no
value or did not exist in the past, prompting colleges and universities to either develop or revise policy
sections dealing with copyrighted materials, including software and instructional technologies. As a result
of those changes, many of today’s policies contain language that differentiates between digital and non-
digital property and contains specific and substantial rights over these now economically viable products.
Higher education institutions have generally advanced claims to the faculty’s copyrightable intellectual
products under certain conditions, which are commonly found in policy language. Some of this language
originates in copyright legislation, such as “work for hire,” which affords the employer ownership of the
property created and, “within the scope of employment,” which again effectively enables the institution to
claim ownership of the property created. Other language addresses “use of institutional resources” or
“substantial use of institutional resources,” which furthers an institution’s case for ownership and control.
In fact, the often-substantial institutional resource contribution (instructional designers, programmers, and
support staff) necessary to participate in some forms of eLearning is recognized and specifically
mentioned in policy language. The intersection of intellectual property rights, specifically the area of
copyright, and technology in higher education is the realm of eLearning, including distance education,
digital repositories, and electronic courseware products. The emergence of Web 2.0 tools is likely to spur
institutions to once again reexamine their intellectual property policies to ensure that they are addressing
development in an online environment.
For the past few years, instructors have been incorporating cloud-based teaching and learning
technologies into their courses, often with little or no thought about the privacy implications of having
student work in an online, sometimes open, environment. Institutions and faculty members need to be
cognizant of FERPA requirements and determine how to interpret them for their classes, as well as
develop ways for instructors to structure assignments in such a way that supports course objectives and
innovation.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1 100

 Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

The section of FERPA that is most relevant to instruction is the part that states, “generally, schools must
have written permission from the parent or eligible student in order to release any information from a
student’s education record” (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html). Education
records are currently defined as records that are directly related to a “student” and maintained by an
“educational agency or institution” or by a party acting for the agency or institution
(http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ht12-17-08-att.pdf). When a student’s work is posted
online, a record of the student’s work and involvement in the course is automatically created and thus
may be subject to FERPA restrictions, depending on the institution’s interpretation of what is
“maintained” by the college or university. This is different from a conversation occurring in a face-to-face
classroom, where the event is fleeting and not recorded and thus not part of an education record.
Similarly, an assignment that is not submitted to the instructor or other party acting on behalf of the
institution may not be subject to strict FERPA compliance since it never became part of the education
record. Peer review, for example, may not fall under FERPA restrictions because the work is shared
between students before it is turned into the instructor, at which point the review becomes part of a
student’s education record (see Owasso ISD v. Falvo).
It is important to note that FERPA is an obligation of the institution, not of the specific faculty member,
given that case law does not provide an individual right of action. The consequence of a FERPA violation
is a sanction by the Department of Education. Traditionally those sanctions have been in the form of an
investigation and a warning letter to an institution found to be in violation. To date, no institution has
suffered the more extreme consequence: a restriction on federal funds, including financial aid and grants.
Thus, colleges and universities have cause to be vigilant about compliance. For the individual faculty
member it is important to remember that he or she carries the weight of that obligation for their
institution. While he or she may not be personally liable for a breach, the individual may be subject to
internal sanctions within the institution if actions resulted in consequences for the school.
Institutional response and attempts to comply with FERPA, especially as they relate to instruction in
online environments, vary significantly. Some are integrating online education into their FERPA training
for faculty members and employees, such as the Colorado Community Colleges. They have integrated
online learning scenarios into their FERPA training. Other schools have taken their policies further and
created guidelines and student consent forms for faculty members to use. North Carolina State University
has created a FERPA Privacy checklist for online course hosting, for example, which guides faculty
members in the interpretation of FERPA in a web-based environment, while also providing examples of
alternatives.
Several items should be considered in making the decision whether or not and how to support Web 2.0
tools. The following steps could serve as guide in forming implementation decisions.
1. Adopt an institution-wide data collection initiative addressing student and their use of technology
for learning.
2. Assemble a local institutional team including individuals from the faculty, instructional
technology or design, information technology, student body, and administration to collect
information and make decisions involving support for faculty members and students around
current instructional practice, Web 2.0 tools, and other emerging technologies.
3. Before launching initiatives, consult with and involve individuals who can advise and offer
support around policy issues relating to intellectual property, FERPA, and copyright.
4. Periodically explore alternative solutions that can support the faculty and learners in the use of
innovative and emerging learning technologies that exist within or can be integrated into an
existing LMS product or by locally hosting an externally available Web 2.0 tool.
Technology, learning and information, continues to proliferate and raise costs in ways that make it
challenging for faculty members and institutions to keep up. For these and many other reasons it is
important to strategically select and support those technologies that are closely related to our core
challenges and missions: student access, retention and learning. Regularly assessing the technology tools

101 Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1

Cloud-Based Technologies: Faculty Development, Support, and Implementation

and initiatives that exist will enable us to better understand the value of our investments and adjust our
resources accordingly.
V. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Prior to assuming her role as associate director for ELI, Veronica Diaz was the Instructional Technology
Manager for the Maricopa Community College District, Maricopa Center for Learning and Instruction,
the district's faculty development unit. In that capacity, she led learning technologies faculty professional
development initiatives for the 10 colleges. She has also served as the Co-Principal Investigator of the
Achieving Technological Literacy in Arizona for Students and Teachers, National Science Foundation
Grant. Previously, she was responsible for the University of Arizona's, College of Management teaching
and learning with technology initiatives, Principle Investigator of the HP Technology for Teaching Grant,
and their Tablet PC Initiative. She also serves as Adjunct Professor at the University of Arizona and
Northern Arizona University where she teaches various marketing, organizational development,
technology, and research courses at the undergraduate and graduate level.
Throughout her career, Diaz has served on various statewide and national information and learning
technology advisory boards and steering committees at 2- and 4-year institutions and professional
associations that advise on technology policy, teaching and learning with technology, faculty
development, higher education and information technology strategic alliances (mobile technologies,
desktop computing, centers for teaching and learning), and technology master plans. Active in the field of
online and hybrid learning and teaching innovation, Diaz is the co-chair of the EDUCAUSE Advisory
Committee on Teaching and Learning and has presented seminars nationally on faculty use of
instructional technology, blended learning delivery models, intellectual property policies for distributed
learning environments, and emerging technologies.
VI. REFERENCES
1. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J., Class Differences, Online Education in the U.S, 2010, Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium, 2010.
2. Smith, S.D., & Caruso, J.B. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information
Technology (2010). EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research.
http://www.educause.edu/Resources/ECARStudyofUndergraduateStuden/217333.
3. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Framework for 21st Century Learning. Tucson, AZ:
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. http://www.p21.org/documents/P21_Framework.pdf.

Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, Volume 15: Issue 1 102