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.
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
Hinweis der Redaktion
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.