Presented at the ELI 2015 conference. In an effort to improve the quantity and quality of online and blended courses taught at Purdue University North Central, a new program was put into place in fall 2014. Based on research in the value of peer mentoring in academic settings, a group of faculty mentors with extensive experience teaching with technology were paired with others who are just getting started. This presentation will describe the program structure, as well as the successes and challenges of the program from the faculty point of view, in order to assist other institutions in exploring similar models for improved faculty development.

1. Carin Chuang, Assoc. Professor of Computer InformationTechnology
Annette Coates, Clinical Assoc. Professor of Nursing
Karen Klosinski,Asst. Professor of Nursing
Christabel Rogalin, Assoc. Professor of Sociology
AnastasiaTrekles, Clinical Asst. Professor of InstructionalTechnology
SarahWhite, Continuing Lecturer of English.

2.  Are you a: (select all that apply)
 Faculty member
 Instructional designer
 Technology coordinator/director
 Academic administrator
 Other

3.  Have you instituted a formal distance
teaching or educational technology training
program for faculty?
 Yes and we love it
 Yes but we want to make changes
 We’re thinking about it
 We’re not ready yet

4.  A holistic and personalized approach to
professional development in online/blended
learning and teaching
 Multiple opportunities for feedback and
evaluation while developing and teaching a
new course
 Faculty get to know one another better
across disciplines

5.  Mentors (Guides) work
with faculty Course
Developers to create/re-
create and deliver an
online, face-to-face, or
hybrid course
 Each course is reviewed
with the Quality Matters
rubric
 Overall goal is to increase
technology use as well as
course quality in delivery
 Non-punitive, collegial
environment

6.  Complete Quality Matters or commensurate
educational technology training/experience
 Initiate and attend regular meetings with
protégés (at least once monthly)
 Informally review courses with Course
Developers at the end of the first semester
 Review courses with the other Guides at the
end of the second semester and certify
passing faculty
 Stipends provided

7.  Agree to complete development of a course that
will be taught in the second semester
 Any department , full-time or part-time
 Any type of course – new, existing, online,
traditional, hybrid
 Guides can choose to work with faculty across
multiple departments (up to 3 Course
Developers per mentor)
 Stay in regular communication with mentors
throughout the academic year
 Stipends provided

8.  Mentors provide
continual feedback on all
areas of course
 Objectives
 Assessments
 Interaction
 Course Navigation
 Accessibility
 Formal review at end of
spring semester is
performed with all
mentors together –
collaborative effort

9.  Monthly workshops each semester on various
topics chosen based on faculty interests and
feedback (see http://www.pnc.edu/distance)
 Faculty encouraged to use the tools and
strategies that work best for them
 No specific tool required other than the use
of the LMS (BlackBoard)

10.  Guides have learned a lot about their own
teaching as well as supporting others
 Gaining greater respect and building
community
 Ensuring that it’s not all about “online”
encourages wider participation

11.  Time
 Consistent participation
 Providing constructive criticism
 Helping faculty choose the tools best for their
courses
 Taking things one step at a time

12.  What has worked for faculty development in
online/hybrid teaching for your institutions?
 What have been the major hurdles to
implementation of formal training programs
for online/hybrid/technology-assisted
teaching?

13.  Barczyk, C., Buckenmeyer, J., Feldman, L., & Hixon, E. (2011).
Assessment of a university-based distance education mentoring
program from a quality management perspective. Mentoring &Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 19(1), 5-24.
 Huston,T., &Weaver, C.L. (2008). Peer coaching: Professional
development for experienced faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 33(1),
5-20.
 Pan,C., &Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between
instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic
case study. Journal of EducationalTechnology Development and Exchange,
2(1), 33-52. Retrieved from
http://www.sicet.org/journals/jetde/jetde09/sam.pdf
 Quality Matters Program (2014). QM research. Quality Matters. Retrieved
from https://www.qualitymatters.org/research.
 Sener, J., & Shattuck, K. (2006). Research literature and standards sets
support for Quality Matters review standards as of 12/5/05. Quality
Matters.