A National Study of Training Content and Activities for Faculty Development for Online Teaching

Abstract

This article presents the results of a national study of 39 higher education institutions that collected information about their practices for faculty development for online teaching and particularly the content and training activities used during 2011-2012. This study found that the most frequently offered training content (97% of the institutions) was assessment of student learning, followed by creating online community (91.1%), and training on the institution’s CMS, student learning styles, and instructional design models (all at 84%). Most frequent training activities (over 90% of institutions) were the workshop, one-on-one training, short sessions, hands-on training, one-time training, and creating an online course. Interesting differences by Carnegie institution type were found, perhaps explained by developers placing more value on teaching pedagogies than tools.

An Analysis of the Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Faculty Development for Online Teaching

“…In any case, the final result would be empowering faculty developers with the data and insights to make the best choices regarding desired outcomes and available budget. This article builds upon the findings in [20] which presented the results of a survey of institutions that offer faculty development for online teaching. The results in [20] focused first and foremost on the frequency that institutions used the training activities and content used in this study, but also evaluated the value of each separate training activity and content.…”

“…This article builds upon the findings in [20] which presented the results of a survey of institutions that offer faculty development for online teaching. The results in [20] focused first and foremost on the frequency that institutions used the training activities and content used in this study, but also evaluated the value of each separate training activity and content. However, in the current study, institutions assessed what they would do if budget cuts at their institution forced them to change what they do.…”

“…What is less clear is whether the value developers apply to these items are based on 1) the effectiveness of the activities or content in teaching faculty what they need to know or 2) their cost-effectiveness. Second, as noted in [20], there is evidence that faculty developers have a preference to keep or expand training that deals with pedagogies (e.g., experiential learning, critical thinking). On the other hand, training dealing with tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, Facebook/Twitter) is more likely to be scaled back or even eliminated altogether.…”

“…On the other hand, training dealing with tools (e.g., blogs, wikis, Facebook/Twitter) is more likely to be scaled back or even eliminated altogether. Second, there is a lack of confidence or commitment to providing faculty with the research bases of online learning (also noted in [20]), which survey responses suggest would be scaled back or eliminated by over half of the institutions. Third, the institutions' response to "access to externally-run training" is intriguing, since it captures both a slight expansion for some institutions as well as a larger scaling back for others.…”

“…However, in the current study, institutions assessed what they would do if budget cuts at their institution forced them to change what they do. In other words, this analysis looks more closely on the value-and-cost assessment of faculty developers of the same training activities and content profiled in [20] as well as possible outcome measures that assess the cost of faculty development for online teaching, including one specific measure: how many faculty were served in the most recent academic year. …”