Faculty Development in the Age of Online "Everything"


Published on

Presentation for the Midwest Scholars Conference 2013

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Faculty Development in the Age of Online "Everything"

  1. 1. Rate Your SchoolOn your paper, take a minute and rateyour school in the various areas on a scalefrom 1-5 regarding your perceived levelof university support in the various areas:
  2. 2. Session ObjectivesParticipants will: 0 Gain perspective on what it takes to provide quality support for faculty transitioning to online and hybrid classroom models 0 Gain knowledge about best practices regarding faculty development for online teaching and learning 0 Learn how to ensure that digital accessibility for persons with disabilities is infused throughout the training and support process
  3. 3. Our Campuses0 Regional campuses of major public university – Purdue University0 Purdue Calumet (PUC) is located near the Illinois border, 20 miles from Chicago 0 Mostly urban population 0 Large population of commuter, non-traditional students0 Purdue North Central (PNC) is located about 40 miles east of Purdue Calumet 0 More rural/suburban population 0 About half the size of PUC, mostly non-traditional students
  4. 4. About Us0 Anastasia Trekles- Clinical Associate Professor, Purdue University Calumet0 Pam Riesmeyer- Web Accessibility Coordinator, Purdue University Calumet0 Erin White- Coordinator of Learning and Technology & Continuing Lecturer in Education
  5. 5. The First Step: Needs Analysis0 Survey faculty to assess needs and to establish a baseline of where to start regarding the development and future implementation of faculty training for online teaching and learning0 Interview stakeholders- faculty, students, administrators, and staff0 Take inventory of current supporting infrastructure: 0 Web resources 0 Tech support 0 Training 0 One-on-one consultations
  6. 6. To illustrate…0 Awareness of accessibility and comfort level Question: What is your understanding of Web site accessibility? a. Very little, Im just starting to learn (10%) b. I have some understanding but need more (49%) c. I am well aware of Web site accessibility needs (41%)
  7. 7. I am comfortable using the following:
  8. 8. Expressed faculty concernsA persistent theme was that a lack of knowledge exists regarding the skills and support needed to design and develop online course materials (best practices and pedagogy) 63% did NOT feel competent in designing and developing online course materialsThey felt students need organized instruction in the online education process
  9. 9. IdentifyProblem(s) Faculty Budget/ Motivation Incentives Administrative Design & Support Develop a Program Technology Pedagogical (Redesign) Support Support Implement & Assess
  10. 10. Format for Training0 Mandatory or not? 0 PNC Faculty Senate passed ‘Recommendations for Online Courses’ 0 At Calumet, some departments made Distance Learning Certification program mandatory0 Interactive or not?0 In person or online?0 One-on-one or group instruction?
  11. 11. What’s Been Successful?0“Working Fridays”0Walk-in assistance during the week0Online Academy0Mentorship between faculty0One-on-one in person or virtual (webcasts)0DOC program (Develop an Online Course)
  12. 12. Accessibility0 Why do we need to address this? 0 Hearing/visually/mobility impaired 0 Colorblindness 0 Learning disabled0 Should be infused into all training0 Usability is accessibility – universal design mindset0 Accessibility doesn’t only benefit individuals with disabilities – it benefits all learners
  13. 13. Accessibility Best Practices0 PDFs, PowerPoint, Excel and Word docs0 Closed-captioning for all videos: can be searched, publishers can create CC videos (see http://www.uiaccess.com/transcripts/transcripts_on_the_ web.html#benes)0 Web Pages that adhere to accessibility standards (see http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility)0 Live Presentations (see http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/accessible)0 Testing (additional time available in LMS, images and audio usage)
  14. 14. Examples0Recommendations for training0Checklist and guidelines for accessibility0Rubrics for online courses- PNC Recommendations for Online Courses
  15. 15. How did you rate your PD?
  16. 16. Commercials, faculty Stipend, Letter of testimonials, chair’s Recognition, Publicity, support, promote increase VCAA & Chancellor’s in enrollment/ graduation endorsement rates Expanded support via web resources, work study & currently Increased training via facultyseeking to train helpdesk personnel to mentors, graduate expand their role practicums, work study
  17. 17. Resources0 Quality Matters: http://qualitymatters.org0 QM rubric: http://www.qmprogram.org/files/QM_Standards_2011- 2013.pdf0 Office of Learning and Technology: http://www.pnc.edu/distance0 Purdue University Calumet Accessibility Resources: http://webs.purduecal.edu/webaccessibility0 Book on “human issues” in technology: http://zelda23publishing.com Download these slides: http://slideshare.net/andella
  18. 18. References0 Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Class differences: Online education in the United States, 2010. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved from http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/class_differences.0 Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K., & Dochy, F. (2010). Using student-centered learning environments to stimulate deep approaches to learning: Factors encouraging or discouraging their effectiveness. Educational Research Review, 5(3), 243-260. doi: 10.1015/j.edurev.2010.06.0010 Bernard, R.M., Abrami, P.C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E. Wade, A., Wozney, L., . . . Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439. doi: 10.3102/003465430740033790 Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Reid, L., & Vanderheiden, G. (Eds.). (2008, December 11). Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.
  19. 19. References0 Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., and Haywood, K., (2011). The 2011 Horizon Report. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2011.pdf.0 Kirschner, P.A., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2008). Ten steps to complex learning: A new approach to instruction and instructional design. In T. L. Good (Ed.), 21st Century Education: A Reference Handbook (pp. 244- 253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.0 Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.0 Pernice, S., & Nielsen, J. (2001). Beyond ALT text: Making the web easy to use for users with disabilities. Fremont, CA: Nielsen Norman Group. Retrieved from http://www.nngroup.com/reports/accessibility/beyond_ALT_text.pdf.
  20. 20. References0 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794d, § 1400 et seq. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=stdsdoc.0 Sener, J., & Shattuck, K. (2006). Research literature and standards sets support for Quality Matters review standards as of 12/5/05. Quality Matters. Retrieved from http://www.qmprogram.org/files/Matrix%20of%20Research%20Standard s%20FY0506_0.pdf.0 Swan, K., Matthews, D., Bogle, L., Boles, E., & Day, S. (2012). Linking online course design and implementation to learning outcomes: A design experiment. Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 81-88. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.07.0020 Trekles, A.M. (2009). Putting people first: Human issues in instructional technology. Highland, IN: Zelda23Publishing.0 Wang, Y, Peng, H., Huang, R., Hou, Y., & Wang, J. (2008). Characteristics of distance learners: Research on relationships of learning motivation, learning strategy, self-efficacy, attribution and learning results. Open Learning, 23(1), 17-28 doi: 10.1080/02680510701815277.