2011Challenges and Successess in Faculty Development
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like248 views
This document discusses challenges and strategies for faculty development at different types of institutions. It profiles three institutions: Grand Canyon University (for-profit), Park University (private non-profit), and Boise State University (public). All three institutions face challenges related to communication, resources, and motivating adjunct and full-time faculty. However, they employ different strategies like online portals, communities of practice, and stipends to better support faculty and scale development programs. Key themes are creating community, effective communication, pedagogical focus, and flexible faculty development models.
2011Challenges and Successess in Faculty Development
- 1. CHALLENGES AND SUCCESSES IN FACULTY DEVELOPMENT B. Jean Mandernach, Emily Donnelli-Sallee, Ann Randall & Amber Dailey-Hebert
- 2. OVERVIEW • Traditional professional development models are an inefficient (and ineffective) means of supporting adjunct faculty teaching online courses. The challenge lies in expanding the scope and focus of programming to meet the needs of a diverse faculty body composed of full-time, adjunct, face- to-face, and online faculty. The discussion will address: changing the culture of adjunct faculty, increasing engagement in the university community, and promoting investment in professional development initiatives, as well as scheduling, access, and the scalability of faculty development initiatives.
- 3. For- Profit Public Private Faculty Development
- 4. FOR-PROFIT: GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY • Institutional Culture • Rapid growth • Campus-centric • Large adjunct population • Division between academics and operations
- 5. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY • Challenges • Rate of growth • Communication • Technology • Adjunct culture • Faculty perceptions • Continuously changing faculty population • Scheduling
- 6. GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY • Effective Strategies • Online portal • Community building • Asynchronous programming • Synchronous webinars • Faculty recognition • Resource support
- 7. NON-PROFIT/PRIVATE: PARK UNIVERSITY • Institutional Culture • 40 satellite campuses across the country, with some adjunct faculty 100% virtual • Academic oversight and faculty governance emanate from flagship campus • Full-time faculty to adjunct faculty ratio (130 to 1,300)
- 8. PARK UNIVERSITY • Challenges • Growth of distance programs has outpaced growth of development programs • Multiple and shifting faculty development stakeholders/initiatives • Communication across diverse campuses and faculty populations • Tech-focused perception of adjunct faculty needs
- 9. PARK UNIVERSITY • Strategies • “On demand” web-based resources (self-paced virtual workshops), with pedagogical focus • Train-the-trainer approaches to equip satellite campus leaders • Virtual learning communities(around specific courses-in- development) • Virtual SIGs (around pedagogical topics) • Advisory council to coordinate multiple faculty development initiatives
- 10. PUBLIC: BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Institutional Culture • Largest of 3 State Universities • 19,993 Enrollment: • 85% Idaho residents • 91% live off-campus • 46% take eCampus course(s) • eCampus: • Students: 80% Idaho residents; 35% are 35+ • Courses: 257 (1,154 sections): • 3 undergraduate degree completion programs • 12 graduate programs • Faculty: 43% full-time tenure- track faculty or lecturers • Faculty Development: eQIP eCampus Quality Instruction Program • Year-round • Collaborative
- 11. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Challenges 1. State University: $$ cuts 2. Students: high need and interest has yielded large number of online classes 3. Faculty: high % full-time • Voluntary participation • Motivation 4. Faculty Development Collaborative Model • Interdependence • Differing budget priorities
- 12. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Challenges 1. State University: $$ cuts 2. Students: high need and interest has yielded large number of online classes 3. Faculty: high % full-time • Participation • Motivation 4. Faculty Development Collaborative Model • Interdependence • Differing budget priorities
- 13. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Challenges 1. State University: $$ cuts 2. Students: high need and interest has yielded large number of online classes 3. Faculty: high % full-time • Participation • Motivation 4. Faculty Development Collaborative Model • Interdependence • Differing budget priorities
- 14. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Strategies 1 & 2. Limited Resources; Daunting Task • Program • Cohorts 3. Faculty Buy-in • Preparation • Stipends • Approach 4. Faculty Development Collaboration • Communication • Allocation
- 15. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Strategies 1 & 2. Limited Resources; Daunting Task • Program • Cohorts 3. Faculty Buy-in • Preparation • Stipends • Approach 4. Faculty Development Collaboration • Communication • Allocation
- 16. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Strategies 1 & 2. Limited Resources; Daunting Task • Program • Cohorts 3. Faculty Buy-in • Preparation • Stipends • Approach 4. Faculty Development Collaboration • Communication • Allocation
- 17. BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY • Strategies 1 & 2. Limited Resources; Daunting Task • Program • Cohorts 3. Faculty Buy-in • Preparation • Stipends • Approach 4. Faculty Development Collaboration • Communication • Allocation
- 18. THEMES & TRENDS • Creating • Devising consistent community around and effective discipline rather communication than instructional measures modality Community Communication Organization of Pedagogical Faculty Effectiveness Development • Maintaining a • Achieving an focus on teaching effective model over technology that includes both centralized and decentralized support
- 19. DISCUSSION POINTS • Organizational structure and resource allocation • Who holds academic oversight? • Who holds economic power? • How does institution type affect organization and resource allocation • Institutional locations for faculty development • Coordination of services and programs/“scope creep” • Motivating involvement • Full-time faculty • Adjunct faculty • Working within faculty oversight structures
- 20. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS B. Jean Mandernach Director, Center for Innovation in Research and Teaching Grand Canyon University www.cirt.gcu.edu – jean.mandernach@gcu.edu Emily Donnelli-Sallee Faculty Director, Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning Park University www.park.edu/cetl – emily.donnelli@park.edu Ann Randall Distance Education Faculty Professional Education Coordinator Boise State University www.boisestate.edu/distance – annrandall@boisestate.edu Amber Dailey-Hebert Associate Professor of Adult Education, Graduate & Professional Studies Park University adailey@park.edu
Editor's Notes
- #21: Looking at resources allocated…do the budgets reflect the collaboration between faculty development initiatives? Stability of future funding.. Academic oversight happens from AA but the majority of the $$ are from distance learning…Dynamics/community building; attitudes/perceptions of teaching in the different modalities…Implementing policy and procedure and programs while working within faculty oversight structures…Organizational structure – what’s best? Who holds the academic power? Who holds the economic power? Where does faculty development reside? Best practices for collaborating – faculty development must collaborate with ITS and with distance learningMotivating involvement among full-time faculty; motivation for faculty, FT and part-time. What motivates adjunct involvement, in particular? GCU has 2600 online adjunct faculty; the vast majority teach at more than one institution. Should we invest time and resources into training online faculty who will teach at lots of other institution? What’s the ROI for your development efforts? Also a timing issue – evenings, weekends are best for adjunct faculty/ opposite of how it works with full-time faculty.How to motivate involvement with adjuncts; significant commitment? We have drawn a lot of the online adjuncts from adjuncts who are already teaching on campus. This is a challenge for programs that have just as much distance education as traditional education.Issues of “scope creep” – duplication of services/programs. Who decides? An example from Park is the program coordinator training. Who runs the email? What does that look like to the instructor/faculty? Collaboration should be invisible to the faculty member so that there’s not confusion over the chain of command or the proper contact person.Difference in the structure of the online program itself (how does course development happen? Is it separate from the teaching part?) Is there a tendency in the for-profit and private to do a different structure for course development that leads to unique faculty development needs. This accounts in large part to the balance of FT, tenure/tenure-track faculty. They don’t want to teach classes that other people created…how the structure of the online program affects the faculty development needs.