Growing Your Own Blended and Online Faculty: A Review of Faculty Development Practices in Traditional Institutions

Elizabeth Ciabocchi, Ed.D.

Amy Ginsberg, Ph.D.

Long Island University

Blended Learning Faculty Development Practices & Models in Traditional Higher Education Institutions

Sloan-C Blended Learning ConferenceMilwaukee, WIJuly 8, 2013

1Presentation overviewWho We Are

The Context of This Work

Survey and Results

Next Steps

2The Proliferation of Online EducationAllen & Seaman, 2013

Allen, Seaman, Lederman & Jaschik, 2012

Aslanian & Klinefelter, 2013

69.1 % of chief academic leaders say online learning is critical to long-term strategy the highest it has been for 10 years.Approximately 25% of all faculty teach online courses.6.7 million students (32%--an all-time high) are taking at least 1 online course; 2/3 attend not-for-profit institutions.

3Training for Online TeachingAllen & Seaman, 2011Herman, 2012Nearly all IHEs (94%) have training or mentoring.Internally-run courses are most common, followed by informal mentoring, formal mentoring, certification programs, and externally-run training courses.25 types of faculty development programs identified in non-profit IHEs with TLDUs.

4What About Blended Education?McGee & Reis, 2012Public institutions (79%) offer more blended courses than private institutions.

Resources allocated to blended course design and delivery suggest its priority for U.S. higher education.

Faculty development is critical, but less research is focused on it.

Our interest: traditional higher education institutions, where much of this growth is taking place.

5Current Knowledge Is Fragmented and Limited Journal articles written by institutional representativesJournal articles on a particular aspect of faculty developmentReferences from limited number of books (as helpful as they are!) Websites and other resources from select institutions.

Here is what we know so far

6

Structure & Implementation of Faculty Development Programs

Influenced by:Faculty characteristics & capabilitiesInstitutional context & resources

Training varies widely:RequirementMode Distributed or centralizedFocusResponsible unitIncentives Authentication of readinessCertification

7In sum...

Faculty development for blended course instruction is all over the map!

So the next question is

What works?

9Existing Literature Points To... IncentivesImproving teaching/learning effectivenessProgram design rooted in best practicesFlexible training schedulesMultiple delivery methods Administrative & financial supportTechnological resourcesOngoing program assessment & improvementSkilled facilitators/trainers

10And another question

How does faculty development for blended instruction relate to the institutions mission and strategic plan?

Existing Philosophical Approaches One Size Fits AllCommunity-based programs (faculty learning community models)

Programs grounded in adult & transformative learning theories

Focus on guidance & match between faculty members dispositions and curricular needs/innovations (Babson College)

12Our Study sheds light on 3 research questions and their interrelationships

How are faculty development programs for blended teaching and learning structured and implemented?

Which elements of the faculty development program for blended teaching and learning have been most/least successful, and why?

What is the underlying philosophy that drives institutional decisions regarding faculty development in blended teaching and learning?

13MethodParticipants500 institutional representatives identified via membership in 3 professional organizationsMeasure17-item survey (quantitative & qualitative elements) in 3 sections:Structure and implementation of faculty development program Perceptions of the most and least successful aspects and recommendations for improvement, and,Relationship of faculty development to institutions strategic plan and underlying institutional philosophyProcedureElectronic distribution and reminder email

14Results 109 (usable) respondentsMore public than private institutions in the sample

Most institutions recommended faculty development for blended instruction

Public VS. Private Institutions Offering and/or Requiring TrainingPublic institutions -Far more likely to recommend (vs. require) faculty development for blended instruction

Private institutions -More likely to require, but less likely to recommend or offer, faculty development for blended instruction

Types of programs including blended courses: Public VS. Private InstitutionsMost institutions, both public and private, offered blended courses primarily in face-to-face programs.

Public institutions were more likely than private institutions to offer online programs including blended courses.

Types of faculty development for blended instruction

18faculty development Delivery modes for blended instruction

19Responsibility for faculty development in blended instruction

20Incentives for faculty development in blended instruction

Most successful elements of faculty development programs

22Recommendations for improvement of faculty development programs

Importance of faculty development to institutional strategic plan Overall Sample

Public vs. Private

24

Findings consistent with the literature

Most common types of faculty development programs offered for online/blended instruction at institutions studied, i.e., internally-offered programs, informal mentoring and formal mentoring

Variability of institutional practices and faculty development models for blended instruction

Variety of training opportunities and delivery formats, creating convenience and flexibility for faculty viewed as critical to success.

Discussion & recommendationsRequire training

Provide incentives

Offer flexibility and convenience

Allocate sufficient human, financial and technical resources

Ensure that the faculty development program has a strong pedagogical design.

26Discussion & recommendations, contdData reveal complexity of interrelationships among factors related to structure, implementation and success of faculty development for blended course instruction.

Findings provoke questions for future investigation.

27Discussion and recommendations, contdPublic institutions gave greater priority to, and more often offered and recommended, faculty development for blended course instruction than private institutions. Private institutions were less likely to offer faculty development for blended course instruction than public institutions, but when it was offered, the training was more likely to be required.Underlying factors to further explore: Relationship of blended learning to institutional mission Resource allocation & fundingPriority and scope of previously established online programs

Questions?Thank you for attending!

Contact Information:Liz.ciabocchi@liu.eduAmy.ginsberg@liu.edu

referencesAllen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D. & Jaschik, S.. Digital faculty: Professors, teaching and technology, 2012. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group & Inside Higher Ed.Aslanian, C.B. & Klinefelter, D.L. (2013). Online college students 2013: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House, Inc.Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87-106.McGee & Reis (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.