College and University Faculty Need Better Professional Development for Teaching Online
by Lorraine D. Ledger, M.S.
Higher education institutions (HEIs) have been feeling intense pressure in recent years to fill US workforce and industry skills gaps, and to remedy systemic social inequities, develop responsible citizens, and generally promote innovation (Banta & Palomba, 2015; Brownlee, 2020; Lock et al., 2018). HEIs are expected to help solve comprehensive social problems while coping with their own significant losses in enrollments, revenues, and the public trust. Research activities, due to their potential to bring funding and prestige to universities, have supplanted teaching as a priority of many institutions. There has been a steady decline in traditional postsecondary student enrollments in the US over the past twenty years. Online programs, however, have steadily increased in popularity over the same period and are continuing to grow (Berry, 2018; Mohr & Shelton, 2017). In 2011, 89% of US colleges and universities were offering fully-online courses and programs (Alexiou-Ray & Bentley, 2015), and that number has risen drastically in recent years, due in part to innovations precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The increase in online college degree programs has boosted an already urgent need for trained faculty who know how to effectively integrate learning technologies into their teaching practices.
Brownlee (2020) and Alexiou-Ray and Bentley (2015) concluded that most faculty are not prepared for a transition to technology-mediated or technology-enhanced teaching. Furthermore, the virtual learning environment is very different for both learners and instructors, requiring instructors to accept a slightly different role in the learning process. Rather than transfer their knowledge to students through telling and directing, online instructors are expected to facilitate and manage a learning process that is student-directed. Mohr and Shelton (2017) wrote that “faculty members often teach as they were taught, and many distance educators did not take online courses as students, which leaves them without a benchmark model for online teaching” (p. 124).
Special training is needed to help faculty, staff, and administrators adjust (Meyer, 2013). “As institutions adopt online education to support institutional growth and student needs, it becomes essential to provide faculty with effective professional development opportunities that expose them to online methodologies” (p. 124). Trained experts are also needed to maintain the technologies and assist users; and to support faculty with course planning, design, revisions, digital transformations of in-person course materials, data security, troubleshooting, records management, assessment development, and media creation. In the early years of computer-mediated education, PD programs for online teaching focused on orienting faculty to the learning management platforms and tools. Today, PD programs at most HEIs are more comprehensive. Meyer (2013) reported that “When the different types or content of faculty development offerings are tracked over time, it becomes evident that the focus has shifted from learning about a new tool or approach to focusing on pedagogy as well as instructional design options” (p. 3).
Models and Frameworks
Canaran and Mirici (2019) wrote that effective faculty PD “accepts teachers both as learners and as teachers and enables them to cope with the challenges of both roles” (p. 351). Several paradigms have been used in framing faculty PD programs, including the deficit, problem-solving, educational change, and professional growth models (Canaran & Mirici, 2019). Most institutions use a combination of these to drive development of their PD content. Educational change emphasizes the need for change for the sake of change; professional growth relies on faculty to direct their own learning to keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date; the deficit model starts with the belief that faculty have performance weaknesses that must be addressed with training interventions; and the problem-solving paradigm assumes PD departments exist as mechanisms for solving institutional problems.
For developing the training activities and learning resources within PD programs, Canaran and Mirici (2019) identified four common modes of delivery: individual, one-to-one, group-based, and institutional. Examples of these, respectively, are journal writing, peer observations, action research, and workshops. Other recommended models from Canaran and Mirici’s research included mentorships, collaborative writing projects, reading groups, communities of practice, and the cascade model “in which teachers participate in a training program individually and then disseminate” their new knowledge and skills to their colleagues later (p. 353). Adult learning theories (e.g., self-directed learning) should also be consulted when planning training programs for adults. Meyer (2013) recommended Knowles’s andragogy, Mezirow’s transformative, and Kolb’s experiential learning theories as essential for working with adults.
Canaran and Mirici (2019) suggested that a reciprocal relationship exists, between students’ attitudes and learning successes, and the beliefs and pedagogical methods of their teachers. They explained that, when faculty try a new teaching approach (e.g., flipped classroom) and then see direct evidence of student learning afterward, instructors tend to become more accepting of the new teaching method as a result. This seems to support the logic that, if students are enthusiastic about using technology for learning in class, an instructor’s interest in integrating technology into course activities also is likely to increase.
Effective Characteristics
The following effective PD characteristics were noted by Meyer (2013): relevance to the needs of both teachers and their students; opportunities for collaboration and interaction with peers; time for reflection and exploration of personal beliefs and practices; time to practice new skills; time to plan for incorporating new knowledge and skills into classroom learning; support from institutional leadership; “job-embeddedness and contextual alignment”; support for critical engagement with content; and valuing the knowledge and experience of individuals (p. 352). Content knowledge was traditionally the emphasis of most PD programs before online teaching and learning became a mainstay of HEIs, but now gaining skills and knowledge in, both, how to teach and how to teach with technology have become the centerpieces of training and support services for faculty, staff, and academic leadership on college campuses.
Technology-related PD programs for faculty at HEIs have tended to focus slightly more on developing basic technical skills (e.g., uploading LMS content), rather than on helping instructors to understand the connections between their teaching methods, course design, student outcomes, and program assessments. This emphasis may explain why some faculty have been reluctant to avail themselves of educational technology training and services. Even those who have pursued training and support often report feeling dissatisfied with the PD programs at their institutions. For example, Berry (2018) found that professors at one large research university in the western US were very unhappy with the support and training they received for teaching in the school’s online doctoral program. The instructors felt that the training provided was “irrelevant and disconnected to their teaching goals and needs” (p. 121). Alexiou-Ray and Bentley (2015) also concluded that, although more institutions than ever are offering courses fully online, faculty are not always prepared to effectively teach in an online environment.
Online faculty need training in strategies specifically designed for teaching at a distance and in a virtual environment (Mohr & Shelton, 2017). In addition to providing technical resources and training, Eddy et al. (2021) advised that faculty PD programs need to address specific teaching contexts and learner needs. Experts in instructional technology, curriculum development, and learning sciences should staff PD departments and be available to help faculty match their subject-matter to the best course design and delivery models for meeting their course learning objectives (Mohr & Shelton, 2017). Brownlee (2020) advocated for PD programming that influences faculty to shift the institution’s entire approach to the teaching-learning process, leading to learning materials and activities that are innovative and student-driven. PD programs should give rise to opportunities for faculty to reassess the entire curriculum and determine how well it does, or does not, promote 21st century skills and student lifelong learning habits. PD programs should empower instructors to experiment with new methods of content presentation and student performance evaluation (Brownlee, 2020). Online courses should be designed to help online students engage fully with content and each other (Eddy et al., 2021). This practice should extend to PD courses, so that online instructors may experience empathy for their students.
As with teaching and learning in traditional face-to-face classroom environments, it is important that the online curriculum focus on student achievement and align with the institution’s unique mission and goals (Banta & Palomba, 2015; Mohr & Shelton, 2017). Faculty PD programs should align with specific student learning outcomes (SLOs) by supplying faculty with the knowledge and skills they require to meet program and institutional goals (Mohr & Shelton, 2017). Training that specifically prepares faculty for teaching in an online learning context is critical to the success of online students. “Faculty that are not prepared are less likely to help students engage with peers, collaborate on learning activities and cultivate a sense of community” (Berry, 2018, p. 122), known factors in student success and achievement. At the course and program level, faculty development can contribute positively to SLOs by making instructional design training a standard part of the institutional research and assessment cycles. For instance, “faculty can attend workshops to assist them with developing clear and measurable learning outcomes, an essential early step in the assessment process” (Banta & Palomba, 2015, p. 27). Brownlee (2020) believed that institutional investments in PD programs for faculty are likely to improve student retention and persistence.
Traditional PD programs, consisting mainly of occasional seminars and workshops, have been criticized for their limited impact (Canaran & Mirici, 2019). Ongoing, sustained, and comprehensive training and support for faculty at different career stages is needed to produce “impactful teacher learning” (Banta & Palomba, 2015; Canaran & Mirici, 2019, p. 352; Mohr & Shelton, 2017). Mohr and Shelton’s (2017) extensive four-survey-round Delphi study of PD for online teachers identified a list of best institutional practices. Components for online teaching PD training recommended by Mohr and Shelton include: strategies for connecting with online students and creating a sense of instructor presence in the online environment; developing appropriate formative and summative assessments; managing and planning student discussions; understanding legal and ethical issues, such as FERPA, copyright, and ADA compliance; and course media, materials, and LMS module development and design (i.e., templates and checklists). Institutions should employ an instructional designer to assist faculty with course content and pedagogy, and experts in campus digital technologies to provide technical assistance (i.e., help desk) for students, staff, and faculty that is available 24/7.
Community Colleges
Different sizes and types of HEIs have handled faculty training and support differently. Most large public colleges and universities maintain teaching centers with full-time staff to train and support faculty, but community colleges have recently moved to the forefront of modeling best-practices for online faculty PD. This has not always been the case. Many state and local systems have reorganized their hiring and on-boarding practices to improve SLOs (ie., student completion rates), focusing more attention on teacher preparedness. Community colleges, in particular, have proven themselves resilient and forward-thinking when it comes to online learning and preparing faculty for student-centered and technology-mediated teaching, according to several recent reports (Eddy et al., 2021). For example, at the height of the pandemic, the Alabama Community College System seized the opportunity to launch a virtual reality (VR) training program called Jump Start AL (jumpstartal.com). Under the leadership of Chancellor Jimmy Baker, the multi-campus VR program delivered “hands-on” simulations to fill workplace skill gaps aligned with local industry demands. The VR was also an investment in the future and provided a means of course delivery, whether students were at home or on campus (Brownlee, 2020).
Eddy et al. (2021) reported that community colleges throughout the US now emphasize high impact teaching practices, including use of collaborative and constructivist teaching methods. Many require all newly-hired instructors to participate in technology and pedagogy trainings, which are specifically designed to improve SLOs and persistence. Eddy et al. further reported (p. 200) that these PD programs, more often than those at other types of institutions, supported active and inquiry-based learning, innovative student assessment methods (e.g., project-based), and mentorships for underrepresented faculty.
Institutional Approaches
Whether large, small, private, or public, all current institutional faculty PD programs appear to include some kind of technology training or support service. These services vary widely in scope, depth, modality, availability, leadership, and organizational structure. Some institutions have dedicated departments for technology-related PD, while others fit different aspects of technology training and support into other areas of campus operations. For example, Boston University (www.bu.edu) provides comprehensive services within the Provost’s Office, while University of Pittsburgh (www.pitt.edu) offers mainly help desk-type technical support.
Example 1: Boston University
This selective doctoral university in Massachusetts, Boston University (Boston), employs 10,000 teaching and research faculty throughout its seven schools and two main campuses. Boston provides extensive technology services for faculty, staff, and students, as well as comprehensive PD training and support. Their dedicated Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) is fully staffed by experts holding masters and doctoral degrees. Improving online teaching and learning is a top priority, as is innovation and experimentation. The departments of Educational Technology (EdTech), Faculty Affairs, and the CTL fall under the leadership and control of the Provost’s Office. CTL staffing includes a director, associate and assistant directors, graduate assistants and teaching fellows, educational technologists, media specialists, and several instructional designers (Boston U., 2022a).
CTL offers “individualized consultations, workshops, seminars, and institutes designed to promote critical reflection and experimentation in teaching, including the purposeful use of technologies,” in partnership with the Shipley Center for Digital Learning and Innovation (Boston U., 2022b). The Shipley Center opened in 2021 but was an expansion of CTL and Educational Technology services in place since around 2013. The CTL hosts graduate assistants and teaching fellows, and maintains a busy and popular schedule of workshops on subjects like student data security, creating assessments and survey instruments, use of software, and learning science.
All technology decisions and related services on campus are governed by executive staff and multiple functional area committees that “guide technology planning, project prioritization, and service level management” in a unified and centralized manner for the benefit of the entire university (EdTech, 2022). EdTech in conjunction with Information Services and Technology (IT & S), maintains a public-facing site called TechWeb, for faculty, staff, and students to get help and information related to the campus technology infrastructure and a variety of tools and services (i.e., help desk). They also offer joint training and help for using adopted campus technologies, like Blackboard. In conjunction with the CTL, EdTech also leads several learning communities for faculty and staff where they can “share ideas, meet and connect with colleagues, and discuss platforms designed to improve students’ learning experience” (EdTech, 2022). The Shipley Center physically houses a fully-staffed media studio space for faculty, and is responsible for piloting Boston’s new online MBA program. Overall, Boston’s PD programs and services are well-integrated into campus culture and faculty enthusiastically participate.
Example 2: Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Tech (www.gatech.edu) is another large research institution with a well-established faculty technology integration PD program, which makes sense considering the school’s degree programs. The institution’s main website is unclear as to whether PD programs and technology services are managed separately. PD programs and assistance featured on the eCampus pages are strictly targeted to faculty who teach online, while another site is dedicated to the activities of their Center for Teaching and Learning (Georgia Tech, n.d.a).
Georgia Tech’s PD services appear less centralized, but offer faculty extensive course planning and technical assistance. Services include course building, personal coaching, and project management (Georgia Tech, n.d.b). CTL also manages graduate teaching assistants, offers learning communities for faculty, and conducts workshops, seminars, and summer institutes.
Example 3: California State University-Fresno
The online faculty PD program at California State University-Fresno, known colloquially as Fresno State (www.fresnostate.edu), falls under the management of The California State University System’s centralized Online Course Services (OCS) department (Online Course Services, n.d.). OCS reports to the System Chancellor’s Office and emphasizes use of a proprietary quality control framework for teaching and course development on all campuses. The Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE) falls under the jurisdiction of the Division of Academic Affairs, and is housed within the Office of Innovation and Digital Excellence for Academic Success, or IDEAS (Fresno State, n.d.). Fresno’s PD program for online faculty is mandatory and covers course development and use of quality rubrics.
Conclusions
The literature reviewed, though helpful in contextualizing best-practices around various models and case studies, did not sufficiently establish a single standard for practice for online faculty development. PD programs, like those at Boston University and Oregon State University, are exemplary for following research-based methods in their faculty training and support programs. The most important features found included that faculty should be provided with ongoing access to training resources and technical support; and that all teaching-related communications, pedagogical resources, workshops and training, instructional design and consulting services, and technical support should be centralized under a single office or significant authority, such as the Provost or other executive sponsor, so that faculty can more easily access all available help at their convenience and in a timely manner. The general benefits of innovation labs and fully-equipped media creation studios for faculty, for in-house development of online courses and materials, are other noteworthy elements that all HEIs should consider investing in.
On the whole, it is clear that HEIs who were already on the road to innovative practices before the recent Covid-19 pandemic forced a major shift to online learning across the country, have faired well in furthering their online education ambitions. This paper’s research, though limited, has contributed positively to the body of knowledge on faculty PD for online courses and further research would be beneficial to crystallizing a preferred and proven method.
References
Alexiou-Ray, J., & Bentley, C. C. (2015). Faculty professional development for quality online teaching. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18(4). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/175313/
Banta, T. W., & Palomba, C. A. (2015). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Berry, S. (2018, September 15). Professional development for online faculty: Instructors’ perspectives on cultivating technical, pedagogical and content knowledge in a distance program. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31(1), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9194-0
Boston University. (2022a). Center for teaching and learning (CTL). https://www.bu.edu/ctl/
Boston University. (2022b). New faculty resources. Faculty Affairs, Office of the Provost. https://www.bu.edu/provost/faculty-affairs/faculty-resources/
Brownlee, M. I. (2020, August 6). After the pandemic, higher education can’t afford to go back to ‘normal’. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-08-06-after-the-pandemic-higher-education-can-t-afford-to-go-back-to-normal
Canaran, Ö., & Mirici, İ. H. (2019). An overview of the recent views and practices in teacher professional development. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 15(4), 350-362. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.559281
Eddy, P. L., Macdonald, R. H., & Baer, E. M. (2021). Professional development during a crisis and beyond: Lessons learned during COVID. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2021(195), 199-212. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8652972/
EdTech. (2022). Educational technology services. Shipley Center for Digital Learning & Innovation. https://dli.bu.edu
Fresno State. (n.d.). Center for faculty excellence (CFE). California State University Fresno, Division of Academic Affairs, Office of Innovation and Digital Excellence for Academic Success (IDEAS). https://academics.fresnostate.edu/ideas/cfe/online.html
Georgia Tech. (n.d.a). Faculty programs. Center for Teaching and Learning, Georgia Institute of Technology. https://ctl.gatech.edu/faculty
Georgia Tech. (n.d.b). Learning and technology initiatives. Center for Teaching and Learning, Georgia Institute of Technology. https://ctl.gatech.edu/content/learning-and-technology-initiatives
Lock, J., Kim, B., Koh, K., & Wilcox, G. (2018, April). Navigating the tensions of innovative assessment and pedagogy in higher education. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol9/iss1/8
Meyer, K. (2013, December 23). An analysis of the research on faculty development for online teaching and identification of new directions. Online Learning Journal, 17(4). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/183764/
Mohr, S., & Shelton, K. (2017). Best practices framework for online faculty professional development: A Delphi study. Online Learning Journal, 21(4), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i4.1273
Online Course Services. (n.d.). About us. The California State University System. https://ocs.calstate.edu/about
