The document summarizes feedback from a faculty development session. Participants shared insights on their current faculty development processes and ideas for improvement. Common themes included a lack of clear planning and structure, siloed efforts within departments, low attendance for generic workshops, and a need for targeted support and resources for online and distance learning. Suggestions to improve included conducting needs assessments, creating learning paths, incentivizing participation, and better coordinating support from instructional designers and educational technologists.

1. Faculty
Development:
Mindful
journey
or
bad
trip?
Compiled
comments
from
session
worksheets
(apologies
if
some
handwriting
was
mis-­‐interpreted)
1)
Snapshot
of
current
FD
at
your
place
2)
What
does
your
planning
process
look
like?
3)
What
next?
High
Points:
• No
plan,
no
process
• Targeted
workshops
• e-­‐learning
plan
in
the
works
• Reactionary/reactive
• Approachable
Low
points:
• “we
ARE
planning”
• Smartboard
training
&
deployment
• Elluminate/Collaborate
workshops
don’t
work
• Sporadic
• Web
literacy
–
best
practice
sessions
• Information
distribution
• Improve
participation
rate
• Overcome
the
need
to
be
present
for
training
High
Points:
• Need
faculty
involvement
• Go
back
&
ask
faculty
colleagues
about
what
• Informal
sharing
among
faculty
• Each
dept
could
say
what
they
need
they
could
use
Low
points:
• Reorg
of
teach
&
learning
• Low
attendance
• Generic
topics
don’t
lead
to
success
High
Points:
• F2f
sessions
at
beginning
of
term
• Blank
slate
–
nowhere
to
go
but
up!
• Flexibility
• Online
resources
(orientation
to
teaching
Low
points:
online)
• No
specific
resources
for
distance/e-­‐learning
• ID/programmer
1:1
support
High
Points:
• Learning
how
to
include
everyone
–
unit
went
• Take
stock
of
what
we
have,
identify
possible
• 2
weeks
of
summer
workshops
through
major
changes
gaps
• Open
drop-­‐in
hours
• Respond
to
needs
identified
by
faculty
• Survey
faculty
–
identify
assessment
• Vast
range
of
sessions
members
• A
period
of
major
changes
Low
points:
• Not
well
attended
–
no
accountability
High
Points:
• Only
1st
year
of
existence
• Leadership
change
–
director
more
permanent
• Ongoing
training
sessions
• Currently
under
review
• Simplifying
the
training
process
• Trying
to
plan
(but
other
projects
come
up)
• Change
of
management
• Acknowledge
the
limits
Low
points:
• Central
unit
sends
Ed
consultants
to
faculties
• Redesigning
the
information
• Client-­‐driven
entry/structure
• Reactive
• Lack
of
support
• Not
even
at
assessment
stage

2. High
Points:
• Get
key
faculty
to
present
• Help
instructors
teach
their
students
how
the
• Faculty
PD
facilitated
• Why
not
the
how
first
technology
should
be
used
to
achieve
the
class
• JIT
outcomes
Low
points:
High
Points:
• Lack
of
plan
• ISWO
development
• Lots
of
expertise
available
• Difficult
to
know
where
instructors
are
at
• Rationalizing
roles/responsibilities
• Demand
exists
for
faculty
development
• Expanding
(?)
to
support
blended
learning
Low
points:
• Silos
–
no
effective
sue
of
expertise
• [no]
Awareness
of
need
for
Inst.
Dev.
• No
faculty
info
High
Points:
• Planning
committee
not
plugged
into
the
needs
• Pipeline
–
open
online
learning
• Open
source
allows
for
of
faculty
• Share
knowledge
–
if
person
posts
or
emails
a
connection/development
–
but
mostly,
solo
• Better
from
“ground”
–
dept.-­‐level
to
have
one
question
don’t
just
respond
to
that
person
–
person
who
can
share
info
rather,
post
it
so
next
person
asking
same
Low
points:
question
can
easily
read
answer
• Connecting
sessionals/practitioners
• Short
notice
for
development
High
Points:
• Ad
hoc
• Professor
of
teaching
• Good
plan
• Siloed
• Learning
path
for
non-­‐faculty
i.e.
ID’s,
Ed
tech
• Well
targeted,
attended,
planned
• Grassroots-­‐driven
–
invitation
to
showcase/lead
specialists,
Media
specialists
Low
points:
sessional
topics
• Mandatory
ISW?
Government
requirements?
• Low
turnout
• Call
for
proposals
• Unique
pedagogy
for
each
field
of
study
• Surveys
but
low
response
• Too
little
notice
• No
learning
path
• Too
many
offerings
High
Points:
• Institutional
incentives
required!
• Disconnect
between
ID
&
Tech
&
FD
• CTLT
• Mix
of
online
&
f2f
Professional
Development
• Faculties
do
their
own
thing
• Disjointed
and
disconnected
Low
points:
• Planning
focus
on
when?
Late
August
• Low
attendance
• Free
lunch
is
not
the
engagement
strategy
that
works
• Instructional
development
not
connected
to
faculty
development
High
Points:
• Not
much
happening
–
minimal
funds
• Grow
department
–
goal
• Pro
D
Day
–
college,
department
• No
time
to
plan
&
no
ownership
• Plan
• Monthly
Ed
Tech
Forum
–
grassroots
ed
tech
• New
to
the
responsibility
for
Teaching
&
• Learning
Outcomes
• Adoption
of
Learning
Outcomes
is
a
University
Learning
–
plan
to
build
a
program
based
on
• Communicate
who
we
are
and
what
we
do
priority
leadership
from
within…
kind
of
like
ETUG
• Must
overcome
challenge
of
faculty

3. Low
points:
• Faculty
buy-­‐in
• Faculty
resistance
to
Learning
Outcomes
High
Points:
• Plan
in
cycles
• Collaborative
across
institution
• Offering
a
lot
&
variety
• Survey,
f2f,
scholarship
• Instructional
Design
CoP
• Know
where
we
need
to
improve
• Constituent
gaps,
content
experts
• Calendar
Low
points:
• Talk
to
the
right
people
to
find
out
what
is
• Newsletter
needed
• Difficult
to
get
planning
committee
together
• Feed
back
evaluation
into
future
sessions
• Some
institution-­‐wide
initiatives
that
will
have
impact
on
plan
but
not
accessible;
gap
between
• Sometimes
lacks
cohesion
High
Points:
• Moodle
training
• 1-­‐on-­‐1
training
Low
points:
• No
plan
for
future
outlook
• No
resources
$
• Lack
of
qualifies
teachers
• No
emphasis
on
paid
training