In higher education institutions, especially the R1 universities like Pitt, faculty are often hired because of their subject matter expertise, research interests, and research ability. A great number of the faculty do not have a background in education or have not received formal training in teaching skills (Elliott et al., 2015). Pedagogical focus in training programs for online teaching can support faculty’s F2F teaching, as reported by the Pathway participants. Such pedagogy- oriented programs can have far-reaching effects beyond online teaching.
Currently, faculty members do not typically have online learning or teaching experience, as reflected in the Pathway participants’ demographic data. Faculty development for online teaching in the format of a hybrid course appears to be a plausible way to engage faculty to experience what learning online would feel like. Instructors who believe traditional courses are better than online courses may not resist the idea of teaching online because they believe that online teaching would sacrifice course quality (Betts, 1998; Dooley & Murphrey, 2000; Jones & Moller, 2002; O’Quinn & Corry, 2002; Schifter, 2000). Allowing faculty to learn how to teach online in an effective online course may be able to correct such misunderstanding, enabling faculty to venture out to online teaching.
When faculty are put in the position of teaching online, this experience would likely enable them to establish realistic expectations for their students. Since it is recommended that faculty take an online course in preparation for teaching online (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008), faculty development professionals might as well offer them an online course that teaches how to teach online for the sake of efficiency. Even though enrolling faculty in an online course to learn how to teach online has not been reported in the literature on faculty development for online teaching, this approach may be highly practical and rewarding because faculty participants can gain first-hand experience of learning online and develop strategies for teaching online, according to the findings of the Pathway research data.
In terms of topic or focus of faculty training initiatives for online instruction, important concepts such as UDL, predicable design, backward design, CoI, copyright, and accessibility should be included as they are essential in curriculum design and activity design for online courses. Tools like wiki, blog, and journal might be new to faculty, but they should be also presented in a way that embodies pedagogical use, for it is important to also explain why they should be using them (Comas-Quinn, 2011). Meyer (2014) called for the need to “disentangle the various treatments included in faculty development programs” and assess usefulness of separate activities, rather than evaluating the professional development program as a whole, to understand what to include in the program (p. 5). The pedagogical strategies, activities, and technologies quickly applied by the participants of the Pathway indicate their usefulness. Thus, they should be included in professional development programs for online teaching.
It would be worthwhile if faculty members could experience the use of these tools as learners so that they can evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of using them. However, faculty development experts should be cautious in recognizing that faculty courses like the
Pathway are longer and more intensive, which may be a deterrent to busy faculty members who have other competing priorities. In other words, such programs may attract only a small number of enthusiastic faculty who are willing to invest considerable time and effort. Therefore, it is critical to offer faculty development programming in different formats requiring varied commitment levels at different times to reach a broader audience, as suggested in the literature (Comas-Quinn, 2011; Lawler & King, 2000). Such approach is beneficial to all online faculty because their backgrounds and skill levels vary (Ragan, Ko, & Redmond, 2014), and their learning preferences differ (Meyer, 2014).
Since three participants reported that teaching an online course was helpful while learning in the Pathway, faculty development experts may consider offering two separate programs for faculty who are teaching online courses and those who have no online teaching experience. The participants appreciated the help from instructional technologists as it was required for them to meet or talk with one at least once in the Pathway. Pairing with an instructional designer and/or technologist is helpful for instructors in the design and facilitation of an online course for it can reduce their workload, thanks to instructional design experts’ time-saving tips and development support (Conceição, 2006). Hence, this approach should be considered, although it can be resource-demanding.
Faculty development cannot be successful without institutional support (Betts, 1998; Lee, 2001; Lloyd et al., 2012). Monetary rewards and alike motivate faculty extrinsically to take advantage of faculty development programs. However, as demonstrated in this inquiry in practice, monetary incentives are not important (Lawler & King, 2000). Release time, adjusted workload, graduate student support, public recognition, notes of appreciation, and other options are what faculty identified as factors that motivate them to pursue faculty development opportunities
(Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008). On the other hand, intrinsic motivation propels faculty to attend professional development programs (Lawler & King, 2000). Intrinsic motivation can be further divided to the desire of adopting new things, as well a sense of pride and satisfaction (Lawler & King, 2000). Faculty development for online teaching needs to appeal to these intrinsic factors when designing and delivering professional development programs. Faculty developers can collaborate with schools and departments to come up with ways to recognize faculty’s effort in professional development. In the case of the Pathway, a small monetary incentive and a certificate of completion were awarded to faculty, and the department chairs were notified. Transparency between the Teaching Center and the departments seemed to have motivated one Pathway participant in that he did not want to drop out the program to disappoint his chair. This example showed that if providers of professional development programs communicate to the departments, and the departments put emphasis on faculty development, faculty may be more inclined to sign up for and complete professional training programs.