Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development: a new theoretical and practical model for developing online faculty

Concurrent Session 5

Brief Abstract

Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development is a new theoretical and practical model for developing online faculty. The model is currently under review for implementation  in a statewide faculty development initiative for Florida. Come listen, contribute and provide feedback on the Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development!

Presenters

As a Professor, I teach educational technology and instructional design courses via the Canvas LMS platform, while integrating other technologies as applicable (i.e., web conferencing, mobile applications). As an Instructional Designer, I develop face-to-face and eLearning content for corporate trainings. I earned an Ed.D. from the University of Delaware in Educational Leadership (with specialization areas in Educational Technology and Curriculum) in 2013, as well as an M.Ed. in Educational Technology in 2010. I also have a B.A. in English and a B.S. in Education. I am experienced in educational technology curriculum research, planning, and design for both K – 12 and adult learning, with emphasis on instructional technologies. I have over ten years teaching experience, including K-12 students and undergraduate adult learners. In 2009, I was honored to be named Teacher of the Year for Milford School District in Delaware. During my years as a teacher, I also completed two summer internships as a writer for NASA (Technical Writer-2008, News Media/Public Affairs-2009). I now serve as a NASA Student Ambassador.

Extended Abstract

 

The Quality Transformative Model for Online Faculty Development was derived from an extensive review of literature and critical examination of various online faculty development programs. The presenters will highlight the different components of the model and demonstrate how this model can be implemented to transform online faculty development at the state level as well as national level.

Online education “ is no longer a peripheral phenomenon” of the educational landscape, and as online education continues to change, the landscape of educational institutions will need to address the training and development for faculty and others working in the online learning environment (Herman, 2012, p 87). Waterhouse and Harris (2002) suggest faculty readiness and support are key components for success in any faculty development program. While support and readiness are part the integral elements for a faculty development program, there are other factors for consideration. For example, Waterhouse and Harris (2002) and Duta, (2014), posit that there is the need for faculty to understand the use of technology within a pedagogical framework. For a sound pedagogical framework, it will be fundamental that consideration be given to the:  ‘capacity’ of staff; ‘commitment’ of members in the institution, and the ‘cultural’ context (Seibold & Gamble 2015. P 286). In some contexts, it will be necessary to consider whether a centralized or decentralized structure of support will be required. For example, will all training and support be in a central location or will training and support for staff take place within departments?  Furthermore, additional considerations will need to be given to: the mode for the online training; mentoring of staff; scoping of training; individual faculty needs; quality assurance issues; incentives for training; certification; recognition for excellence; support; audience; community of practice; research; sustainability and program review (Dittmar and McCracken 2012, Golden and Brown, 2016; Behar-Horenstein, 2016; Niehaus and Williams 2016, and Adams, 2014).

A faculty development model will require transformational learning that takes place when there is an existing framework or model; exposure to new frameworks for reference; reflection or methods to create good practices (Mezirow 1997). Mezirow also stipulates that “adults’ assumptions and expectations can be changed only after critical reflection and dialogue with those who can shed light on those preconceptions” (1997, p.240). With Mezirow’s theory perspective in mind, it is imperative that consideration is given to reflection. One strategy for active transformational learning is the creation of learning communities. Learning communities provide a pathway to: situated ‘informal networks’, ‘supportive culture’, 'engagement in knowledge building', and ‘Knowledge sharing’ (Community of Practice, 2009 p.7-23).   

 

Key words

Faculty Development, Reflective Transformation, Online learning, Quality Transformation

At the end of this informational session, participants will:

  • Identify key elements of the Quality Transformation Model .

  • Consider how the key elements of  Quality Transformation Model can be used within their institutions.   

  • Contribute, through whole group and small group work, other  important elements that could enhance the Quality Transformation Model.

  • Use the resources provided to evaluate their institutions’ existing models.

During this interactive and informative session the presenters will:

  • Discuss the key components of Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development and the model’s alignment to quality assurance issues.  

  • Provide guidance to attendees for using the ‘Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development’.

  • Provide attendees with the resources to assess their institutional needs using the ‘Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development’.

  • Solicit feedback from participant to solidify and enhance the ‘Quality Transformation Model for Faculty Development’.

 

Audience Engagement

Audience polls, questions, discussions, reflection, live Google document feedback

List of materials for participant's: handouts of model and conference proceedings paper.

References

 

Adams, S. R., & Mix, E. K. (2014). Taking the Lead in Faculty Development: Teacher Educators Changing the Culture of University Faculty Development through Collaboration. AILACTE Journal, 11(1), 37-56.

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Garvan, C. W., Catalanotto, F. A., Yu, S., & Xiaoying, F. (2016). Assessing Faculty Development Needs among Florida's Allied Dental Faculty. Journal Of Dental Hygiene, 90(1), 52-59 8p.

Communities of practice. [electronic resource] : fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place. (2009). Berlin : Springer, c2009.

Dittmar, E., & McCracken, H. (2012). Promoting Continuous Quality Improvement in Online Teaching: The META Model. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(2), 163-175.

Eisner, S. (2015). Onboarding the Faculty: A Model for Win-Win Mentoring. American Journal Of Business Education, 8(1), 7-22.

Golden, J. & Brown, V. (Accepted for Publication 2016). A holistic professional development model: A case study to support faculty transition to online teaching. In D. Polly & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Teacher Education and Professional Development. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.

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.

MCCOMISH, D. d., & PARSONS, J. j. (2013). Transformational Learning and Teacher Collaborative Communities. New Zealand Journal Of Teachers' Work, 10(2), 239-245.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12.

Niehaus, E., & Williams, L. (2016). Faculty Transformation in Curriculum Transformation: The Role of Faculty Development in Campus Internationalization. Innovative Higher Education, 41(1), 59-74.

Seibold, M., & Gamble, K. (2015). Capacity, commitment, and culture: The 3 Cs of staff development in a learning organization. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 38(3), 286-287 2p. doi:10.1037/prj0000157

Waterhouse, S., & Harris, R. (2002). A ten-step guide to establishing instructional technology. Washington, DC: Executive Leadership Foundation