Operationalizing Faculty Development Online: Analyzing the Impact of a Purposefully Designed Online Faculty Development Course Free

Bain (2004) found in his 15-year study that the strongest, most effective college educators were learners who were “constantly trying to improve their own efforts to foster students’ development” (p. 20). Baldwin et al. (2008) contended that while faculty may have a fine logistical of content knowledge, many may not have the skills and understandings required for effective teaching or strengthening their pedagogical skills. According to Baldwin et al. (2008), even for those who do, the demands of research and campus professional leadership leave little time for the continued development of new teaching techniques and approaches. Remarkably, Steinert et al. (2009) argued that considering that faculty members are usually affected by time and location issues, online learning may be particularly wellsuited for faculty development. Cook and Steinert (2013) extended this view by pointing out that clinical calendars, committee and teaching schedules, travel commitments, and lack of protected time can combine to make scheduling face-to-face faculty development activities difficult. Similarly, observed Cook and Steinert (2013), many faculty members, particularly those at community and rural sites, often cannot travel to a central location for organized activities. The present study proceeded on the premise that, with the proliferation of online learning in the 21st century, faculty development initiatives could succeed if implemented exclusively in e-learning settings.

Against this background, the purpose of the present study was to analyze the process which 32 university instructors from across curriculum went through as they underwent a year-long online faculty development instructional excellence academy intended to improve their course delivery skills. The seven-module, asynchronous, online instructional excellence academy began by enrolling a pilot cohort that accommodated 13 faculty members who would complete the course and provide feedback to the developers who would, in turn, use it to revise the course. So, in essence, it was a formative design process that utilized feedback provided by faculty members enrolled in the pilot to improve the content of the course. The pilot intake was followed by two classes, which enrolled 10 faculty members, each making 32 instructors. It took each participant a year (fall, spring, and summer semesters) to complete the course, with modules opening at precise times throughout the year. It must be pointed out that the formative process continued with both classes, with enrolled faculty members continuing to provide feedback for improving the quality of the course.

The study analyzed benefits instructors gained and issues they encountered while going through this faculty development course which ran asynchronously. The study further analyzed how pedagogical issues were resolved while instructors worked with designated instructional designers who provided support throughout the process.

With the growing presence of computers and Internet technologies in our personal and professional lives, it is no surprise that online learning has shown dramatic growth over the past decade (Cook et al., 2010). Online learning is the process of learning with some or all instructional materials and activities delivered over the Internet or a local intranet. Teachers facilitate online learning by structuring and sequencing online activities to help learners achieve defined objectives (Cook & Steinert, 2013). Insofar as teaching and learning support is concerned, Lancaster et al. (2014) found that faculty development programs that feature consultation models with pedagogical experts or faculty peers had the power to rekindle their motivation and enthusiasm and improve their knowledge, behaviors, and dissemination of skills. Faculty are more satisfied with their courses when collaborative support, such as one-on-one consultation with an instructional designer or peer instructors, is provided to achieve desired levels of quality (Puzziferro-Schnitzer, 2005; Wingo et al., 2017). The question that comes to mind then is, can all this be achieved online? For sure it can; online learning may be particularly well-suited for faculty development. As Ko (2019) observed, faculty members can benefit from additional training and development at every stage of their teaching careers, but time and logistical limitations often present formidable barriers. Sherer et al. (2008) pointed out that by bridging physical and temporal separations, internet-based tools can facilitate online communities of practice that would otherwise be impossible. Sherer et al. further contended that other features such as just-in-time availability of resources, economies of scale, and documentation of completion are also helpful for faculty members (just as they are for other learners).

According to Cook and Steinert (2013), online learning for faculty development can meet educational objectives. Cook and Steinert observed that perceived advantages of online faculty development include convenience, flexibility, reduced isolation (if faculty cannot otherwise meet), collaboration across disciplines and distance, and experience of being an online student (can enrich subsequent teaching). Interestingly, Cook and Steinert also acknowledged perceived disadvantages that include increased isolation (if faculty are accustomed to meeting face to face), communication problems, technical problems, lack of comfort with the technology, costly software development, and also trade-off between enhanced flexibility and a strong sense of community. On preparation, Wiss et al. (2018) emphasized that it is essential to provide instructional design support to faculty members to enroll in online faculty development courses. According to Wiss et al., failure to prepare faculty members for online learning can negatively influence and inhibit their participation in distance education.

Zhao et al. (2007) outlined some challenges faculty members face while participating in online faculty development programs. First, they cited a lack of experience in teaching and learning with technology as the biggest challenge. According to Zhao et al., most faculty members in higher education gained their knowledge and skills without educational technology or at a time when educational technology was at a very different state than it is today. To that end, it is not surprising that many do not necessarily see the value of using technology for teaching, and they consider it (technology) irrelevant to good teaching, or they see themselves as insufficiently prepared or skilled to use technology.

Zhao et al. also cited the rapid rate of technology change as a challenge to some faculty members participating in online faculty development programs. Technology changes so fast, observed Zhao et al., causing hardware, software, and knowledge to become outdated every couple of years. They further observed that training instructors on specific software packages is particularly troublesome because any given software release is unlikely to be used just a few years down the road. Argued Zhao et al., “any attempt to keep educators up to date on the latest and greatest hardware or software (especially if it focuses on specifics), is doomed to create outdated professionals” (p. 16).

Communication and social interactions are critical to the long-term success of online faculty development activities. Several studies identified social interaction and bonding as key themes and that online communities can enhance such interactions if faculty members would not otherwise be able to meet (Anshu et al., 2008; Dyrbye et al., 2009). Interestingly, one study found that online faculty development can be, but is not always effective compared to no intervention. The study found that an online journal club was significantly more effective than no intervention (Macrae et al., 2009). On the other hand, another study found that adding a virtual classroom with online assignments to existing face-to-face lectures was associated with significantly improved scores (Dean et al., 2007).

Where participation is concerned, Cook and Steinert (2013) found that many online faculty development courses are plagued by low participation. It has further been observed that only when courses successfully meet a need perceived by faculty members will they invest the necessary time and energy to participate in an online course. Others felt that better organization and assistance with technical problems were keys to success. However, others identified that time to complete course activities, clear expectations, and relevance to near-future academic activities (e.g., teaching) were essential (Anshu et al., 2010; Lewis & Baker, 2005; Paulus et al., 2010).

In summary, the literature indicates that faculty development programs can succeed online despite several perceivable challenges. Online faculty development programs can be a viable way of encouraging more participants in asynchronous sessions that would not require faculty members to be at one place at a set time. It becomes critical to develop these programs while working with faculty members who would provide their input into what they would need to learn about. As Cook and Steinert (2013) observed, online learning for faculty development can meet educational objectives, but participation rates are often low. Using the bottom-up approach where faculty members plan for and develop workshops in various areas of need would certainly improve numbers, coupled with that asynchronous aspect of delivery.

A state university in the Southwest United States embarked on a targeted initiative to provide support for faculty to learn about and apply proven teaching techniques. The Instructional Excellence Academy became the new faculty development yearlong course in which faculty members would learn how to improve course delivery and student learning. Selected faculty members would be chosen from an applicant pool to participate in the Instructional Excellence Academy. Thus, the mission of this initiative was to prepare and challenge faculty members to take an active role in continually improving the quality of their instruction to help students succeed. In the online academy, instructors would learn the essentials of excellent college instruction, including designing an effective course and class, establishing a productive learning environment, using 21st century active learning techniques, assessing to promote learning and informed instruction, and also techniques for promoting higher order thinking. The academy was purposefully designed so that faculty members would feel more confident in their teaching, interact with other faculty around teaching/learning, improve course delivery skills, increase their knowledge of current teaching resources, and apply accommodations, accessibility, and universal design.

The Instructional Excellence Academy was open to all full-time faculty across the curriculum who wished to enhance the quality of instruction in their undergraduate or graduate courses, whether in traditional, blended, or online environments. The academy selection committee was looking for the following applicants: Faculty members who would be actively teaching during the academy, faculty members who taught general education courses, faculty members who were looking to fine-tune or update their teaching practices, and faculty who would apply the methods learned throughout the academy to multiple courses. Two teaching and learning coordinators who were instructional design specialists facilitated the online course and provided wrap-around support, an essential element of the program. Specifically, the teaching and learning coordinators graded all assignments and provided feedback and solved any issues that faculty members experienced during the duration of the asynchronous online course.

Against this background, the purpose of this study was to analyze the process which 32 university instructors from across curriculum went through as they underwent a year-long online faculty development instructional excellence academy intended to improve their course delivery skills. The seven-module, asynchronous, Instructional Excellence Academy began by enrolling a pilot cohort that accommodated 13 faculty members who would complete the course and provide feedback to the developers who would, in turn, use it to revise the course for improvement. So, it was a formative design process that utilized feedback provided by faculty members who took part in the pilot. The pilot intake was followed by two classes, which enrolled 10 faculty members, each making 32 instructors. It took each participant a year (fall, summer, and spring semesters) to complete the course, with modules opening at specified times throughout the year. It must be pointed out that the formative process continued with both classes, with class members continuing to provide feedback to improve the course’s quality. The present study analyzed benefits instructors gained and issues they encountered while asynchronously going through this faculty development course and how the issues were resolved.

The following three research questions guided this study:

1. What pedagogical benefits did participants gain from completing the online Excellence Academy?

2. What challenges did participants encounter while completing the Excellence Academy, and how were they addressed?

3. What implications did the process of offering the Excellence Academy online have on future faculty development initiatives?

Data collection, categorization, and analysis were ongoing throughout the academy, and research logs were used to categorize data. Dilts (1996) defined a research log as a summary of significant findings with notations showing sources searched, comments about the search strategies, suggestions, questions, analysis, and discrepancies. As faculty members went through the academy, logs made it easy to collect data because it was necessary to keep records daily. Throughout the course, research logs were entered on a smart sheet. As academy participants worked through the content of the online course with two instructional designers facilitating the process, notes reflecting their progress were systematically recorded on the research logs on the smart sheet. These notes emanated from pedagogical benefits to course participants and challenges they encountered throughout the online course. Qualitative surveys were also used to gather more data from participants. A qualitative questionnaire with less structured questions was used to seek views from participating instructors. By surveying as many of the past participants as possible, we hoped to learn if the project had been successful or, if anything, what issues would need to be addressed going forward. Basically, the questions sought to find out what their experience was like going through the academy. Benefits gained, and issues they grappled with were systematically recorded on the smart sheet.

• Research Question 1: What pedagogical benefits did participants gain from completing the online Excellence Academy?

First and foremost, results indicated that the Instructional Excellence Academy ran asynchronously worked well for most instructors as they did not have to be at a place and time to attend a class. As Ko (2019, p. 1) observed, “online, asynchronous workshops increase the accessibility of training for a geographically dispersed faculty and are able to attract busy faculty who appreciate the flexibility of online delivery.” A large majority of participants across rank and academic discipline indicated that the academy’s completion helped them improve on course design competence. Faculty members explained that at the end of the academy, they felt more confident developing traditional courses, online or blended courses from scratch without issues and making it learner-centered with high levels of student participation incorporated. So basically, faculty members made it clear that their course design competence was improved across the three modes, traditional, online, and blended. Participants also valued the opportunity to interact with other faculty around teaching/learning because the academy brought them together in an asynchronous environment and increased networking.

Participants made it clear that completion of the academy gave them the ability to design an effective course and class, establish a productive learning environment, use state-of-the-art active learning techniques, and promote higher order thinking in their courses.

o Research Question 2: What challenges did participants encounter while completing the Excellence Academy, and how were they addressed?

Challenges encountered by instructors in the academy included balancing regular teaching time and fulfilling the online course requirements. So, in essence, time was a significant factor due to full loads of teaching. Faculty members had to create time to work on readings and assignments in the academy. They had to plan their time very well; otherwise, it would be difficult. Also, while each module was supposed to take three hours to complete, faculty members thought some modules were longer than others and would have preferred if all modules took the same, shorter length of time to complete. However, participants reported that even the shortest module took longer than three hours to complete, which meant that participants had to create even more time to complete such modules by working closely with their designated instructional designer to ensure that all activities were completed in time. Some links were also found to be broken in course modules. When they encountered these broken links, participants contacted their designated instructional designer, who would quickly work to fix them. Again, participants thought there were too many videos to watch in most modules and felt there was no need to have multiple videos emphasizing the same point. While the number of videos to watch would not be reduced during the academy, designers would take note of such challenges so they could be considered at the end of the year during evaluation and revision. Participating instructors also thought the list of assignments to be completed was too long. Again, designated instructional designers would note such a concern to be considered during revision at the end of the year.

Also, the requirement by the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning for instructors to complete an initial “succeeding in online course” did not work well with most instructors who expressed the concern that taking an entire full online course as a prerequisite to the Instructional Excellence Academy gave them double work. When this concern was raised, the Center for Excellence and Learning included it on its agenda for evaluation and revision at the end of the year. Also, faculty members suggested that rather than have short essay assignments that required participants to apply concepts in the context of classes they taught, it would also help to have one big creative project to get away with at the end.

• Research Question 3: What implications did the process of offering the Instructional Excellence Academy online have on future faculty development initiatives?

The most significant implication at the end of the first cycle was that feedback from participants would shape the academy’s future. As participants provided continuous feedback while going through the course, the online Instructional Excellence Academy was formatively evaluated and revised, considering issues and suggestions raised by instructors. This process continued through the end of the cycle with summative evaluation and revision totaling up the process. During the Excellence Academy, two instructional designers worked with their group of participants; in other words, each participant was assigned one of the two instructional designers to work with them. At the end of the academy, however, the two instructional designers came together to review all feedback from participants. All concerns from the feedback were taken into consideration, and the instructional designers got together to make relevant revisions. Aspects of the academy that were reviewed and revised based on feedback included module content, assignments, course videos, and links. Addressing the concern that some modules took longer to complete than others, module content was revised, ensuring that it took about the same amount of time to complete each module. Content that seemed redundant would be revised, making sure that there was no repetition. In the same way, graded events that seemed to focus on the same point would be reduced to rid the academy of overemphasizing the same points.

Once all revisions were made, five faculty members who had successfully completed the academy before the revision were asked to go through it and view the content from a participant’s point of view and provide any feedback. That feedback was used to make final revisions before the academy would go live for another cycle. Generally, the five reviewers found the academy greatly improved and mainly provided suggestions for minor tweaks.

As a whole, the Instructional Excellence Academy was a huge success. While participants naturally raised issues they encountered while going through the course and completing required graded events, they reported many successes. They made it clear that completion of the academy significantly improved their course delivery skills. Considering how busy faculty members naturally are, the academy ran asynchronously, which helped participants a lot. They did not have to create time to meet for class on designated days and times. The fact that faculty were allocated designated instructional designers also helped a lot because each time they raised an issue emanating from the course in the Canvas learning management system, their designated instructional designer would address it immediately. Successful completion of the first year also positively supported the trend that faculty development programs work in online, asynchronous settings. As Cook and Steinert (2013) pointed out, online learning, in general, is neither superior to nor inferior to other approaches but simply a method that overcomes some challenges while creating others. Going forward, the University would surely continue to run more faculty development programs online and asynchronously. The excellence academy itself would continue to be formatively evaluated and revised to maintain its high-level quality. This would ensure that the academy would continue to be viewed as a valuable professional development experience.