The Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence May 29, 2014 • Volume 1 • Issue 2

I would like to share what I know about faculty developmentHigher education-based instructional designers build course content, courses, and even entire program curriculum, using the LMS, web tools, and other technologies. This person often wears many “hats” as in content developer, course reviewer, tech troubleshooter, and more. The most critical role that the instructional designer (ID) plays, though, is “trainer” or one who provides professional development to aid faculty members in being capable users of the technologies that are necessary to build and deliver their online courses, and, more importantly, knowledgeable of the pedagogical strategies that are most effective in the online environment. I would like to share what I know, primarily through my experience as a SUNY instructional designer at two distinct institutions, a community college and, currently, a Tier-1 research university, about faculty development.

What is itI’ve compared my experiences as an instructional designer at Niagara County Community College (NCCC) and at the University at Buffalo (UB), Graduate School of Education (GSE), with a focus on approaches to faculty development. The main questions that I have posed are How does an instructional designer adapt his/her strategies for faculty development to meet the unique needs of their campus?, How is faculty development contingent upon institutional factors? and Despite the various approaches to faculty development, how can we ensure that all SUNY faculty members that are interested in teaching online are prepared to teach online?

How it worksThe faculty development process differs greatly between these two specific institutions but there are some components that remain the same. I’ve found that the consistent components of faculty development at NCCC and UB are also the strategies cited in the literature as “most effective” or “highly effective,” namely, individualized trainings and ongoing support. Individual consultations with an instructional designer allow for the building of trust, a critical element in any learning process. Furthermore, there is ample evidence of the need for ongoing support in online teaching, as training does not simply “take hold” after one event. Student and faculty needs constantly change, as does technology; in order to meet these needs an ID provides ongoing support and, ideally, builds relationships of trust with faculty members.

What I didA rigorous evaluation of the faculty development models that are being used across SUNY institutions, including a theoretical basis for inclusion, would help to advance the field and our understanding of what works and why. This presentation, though, offers a snapshot comparison as an opportunity to share my experiences, developments and training practices with others in the field.

How I did itI reflected on my own experiences in order to share the practices of an instructional designer with the larger COTE community and to show that there is not one single ID experience, that the nature of this position is contingent upon many contextual factors

COTE NOTE

What I know about Faculty Development

Anne ReedI am an instructional designer at the University at Buffalo (UB) Graduate School of Education. I hold an M.S in Education, an M.A and a B.A in Art History, and a certificate in

Instructional Design. I have been designing online courses and teaching online since 2007. My teaching experience includes UB, Canisius College, and the Art Institute of Pittsburgh. I served as an instructional designer at Niagara County Community College before coming to UB in 2012.

I currently serve on the Open SUNY Competency Development committee. I am a certified Quality Matters peer reviewer, an official Blackboard course reviewer, and a Sloan–C conference proposal reviewer. I am a founding member of the SaFaRi (Shared Faculty Resources) group, a sub-group of the Online Learning Collaborative, at UB. I have developed a faculty training program for the Graduate School of Education at UB, and have designed and conducted dozens of workshops relating to online education.

The Center for Online Teaching Excellence

“...there is ample evidence of the need for ongoing support

in online teaching, as training does not

simply “take hold” after one event.”

The Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence

COTE NOTE

May 29, 2014 • Volume 1 • Issue 2

The COTE Community Team: Alexandra M. Pickett, Associate Director, SUNY Learning Network; Martie Dixon, Assistant Academic Dean, Distance Learning & Alternate Programs, Erie Community College; Patricia Aceves, Director of the Faculty Center in Teaching, Learning & Technology, Stony Brook University; Lisa Dubuc, Coordinator of Electronic Learning, Niagara County Community College; Christine Kroll, Assistant Dean for Online Education, Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo; Deborah Spiro, Assistant Vice President for Distance Education, Nassau Community College.

This publication is produced by the Open SUNY Center for Online Teaching Excellence under the SUNY Office of the Provost.

Contact/Questions State University PlazaAlbany, New York 12246

Contact: COTE@suny.edu

How to Submit Material This publication is produced in conjunction with the COTE “Fellow Chat” speaker series. Please submit a proposal at http://bit.ly/COTEproposal for consideration.

Visit http://commons.suny.edu/cote for more information.

To join COTE, visit http://bit.ly/joinCOTE.

including the institution’s history of online education practices, levels of institutional support, and the expectations on the faculty. A few details of the comparison are outlined here: Niagara County Community College currently offers approximately 210 fully online courses per academic year, while the most recent data indicates that the University at Buffalo offers approximately 620 fully online courses per academic year, of which 250 are offered through the Graduate School of Education.

NCCC has a long history as an SLN member campus, and maintains a procedural approach to faculty development for online education. UB has never been an SLN member campus and the approach here is more informal and focused on individualized training. In regards to the expectations on the faculty I point out the fact that the University at Buffalo is a research institution, a detail that greatly influences the expectations on the faculty members. This is not to take away from the dedicated faculty members at community colleges where the primary mission is teaching; while research is encouraged it is not usually at the level and volume expected at Tier 1 campuses.

Why I did itFaculty development is a process of continuous improvement. I am constantly asking myself how I can provide improved opportunities for the faculty at my university, opportunities which incorporate both pedagogy and technology to connect learners to the course content for a more successful online teaching and learning experience. My current work at UB is influenced by my experience at NCCC, a campus that has a solid reputation for producing quality online offerings and providing a strong sense of a community of practice for the online instructors. Overall, I reflected on the differences in approaches to faculty development to see if any gaps exist in my own current practices and to bring attention to the strategies that work most effectively, and to share these conclusions with the larger COTE community so that we can open up a dialogue on this topic and learn from one another.

What happened when I did itIn conducting this comparison I noticed three persistent themes: personalization, reflection, and community. Even though NCCC’s model is largely procedural, a personalized approach is incorporated via one-on-one consultations with an ID, ongoing support through advanced workshops, and continual communication via an e-learning blog and other methods.

UB GSE offers some group trainings as well as a 4 week online asynchronous course but the faculty development plan is individualized, based upon four stages of pre-planning, planning, delivery, and follow-up. Both processes provide multiple opportunities for the faculty members to reflect on their experiences, needs, beliefs and assumptions about teaching and learning. A focus on developing and maintaining a community of practice for online faculty is also an integral part of each institution’s program. For example, I currently lead two coffee chats (informal discussions focused on a particular topic relating to online education) per semester, which allow faculty members to share ideas and learn from one another. An examination of my experience at NCCC allowed me to determine ways to incorporate a personalized, reflective, community-oriented approach to faculty development based upon the distinct needs of my campus.

What I learnedIn conducting this comparison I gained a better understanding of how institutional context influences (expands rather than limits) an instructional designer’s approach to faculty development. I also learned a great deal about the history of online education at these two institutions. With the start of Open SUNY we are at a crossroads; a new level of system-ness is emerging. As we move forward there are great benefits in looking back, not only to see how far we’ve come, but also so that we may define the future. “What’s past is prologue,” after all.

This publication is disseminated under

the creative commons license Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0.