![]()
PART ONE
BROADENING OUR SCOPE
![]()
CHAPTER 1
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED FACULTY
EMERGING TRENDS, ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES, AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Emily Donnelli-Sallee, Amber Dailey-Hebert
Park University
B. Jean Mandernach
Grand Canyon University
The growth of distance education programs has significantly influenced learner demographics and dispositions; however, often overlooked is its concomitant effect on the characteristics and needs of faculty. As institutions continue to diversify their educational offerings and faculty appointments, innovative, inclusive professional development models are vital for faculty success. A qualitative study of thirty institutions identified trends in faculty development programming, including an emphasis on collaborative course and program development, virtual learning communities and mentoring, and professionalism of contingent faculty roles. Findings highlight the importance of decentralized, networked development models for geographically dispersed faculty.
This research was generously supported by a grant from the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education.
It is seldom disputed that the growth of online and distance education has significantly influenced learner demographics and dispositions; however, often overlooked is its concomitant effect on the characteristics and needs of faculty. Consequently, faculty developers are challenged to support audiences beyond the full-time and adjunct faculty who teach courses on their institutionsā primary physical campuses. Institutions now include a diverse faculty body comprising many full-time and adjunct faculty who work remotely, are not required to serve physically at their institutionās flagship campus, have instructional release time for varied projects, and occupy diverse contractual agreements. As a result, faculty developers now work with faculty from geographically dispersed locations, including faculty teaching online or otherwise remotely at branch campus locations. These faculty possess varying levels of physical and psychological connection to their institutions, hold diverse appointments, and often face limited opportunities for professional development (Bower, 2001; Eaton, 2001; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). As institutions continue to diversify their educational offerings and faculty positions, innovative, inclusive professional enhancement models become even more vital.
To pursue a deeper understanding of effective professional development programming for this expanded faculty audience, researchers from two universities with large distance learning programs undertook a qualitative study of thirty institutions across the spectrum of Carnegie Basic Classifications (including private, public, and nonprofit institutions). The study yielded information about emergent trends in faculty development, primarily in the areas of collaborative course and program development, virtual learning communities, and professionalization of contingent faculty roles, as well as examples of innovative programming across institutional type. However, most significant, and surprising given our focus on identifying strategies and best practices, were interviews that overwhelmingly focused on the impact of organizational factors on faculty development and the pragmatic and epistemological considerations surrounding various models for supporting geographically dispersed faculty.
Thus, in this chapter, we address ways that institutional dynamics constrain and propel the growth of faculty development initiatives and the benefits and costs associated with centralized, decentralized, and hybrid organizational models. This knowledge can aid faculty development stakeholders in determining how to best integrate diverse faculty development goals and programs across academic departments, teaching centers, and distance learning administrative offices. Our contention is that an analysis of institutional organizational dynamics is a requisite first step to developing and sustaining effective, inclusive development programs for geographically dispersed faculty.
Geographically Dispersed Faculty: Context and Growth Factors
The context and characteristics of higher education are changing dramatically as we experience a significant paradigm shift in the academy. Gappa et al. (2007) identified four major forces currently affecting higher education institutions and their faculty members: ā1) fiscal constraints and increased competition, 2) calls for accountability, 3) growing enrollment and increasing diversity of students, and 4) the rise of the Information Age, with its continuous expansion of new technologiesā (p. 15). Certainly online learning is a primary influence on Gappa et al.ās (2007) observations about the role of new technologies. Based on a survey of twenty-five hundred colleges and universities nationwide, the Sloan Consortium found that approximately 5.6 million students were enrolled in at least one online course in fall 2009, representing a growth of over 1 million online students from the previous year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). The ever-increasing student interest in online education has mandated more involvement from adjunct and full-time faculty. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2010), 49 percent of instructional staff in degree-granting postsecondary institutions hold part-time or contingent positions. A study by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (Seaman, 2009), which included both full-time and adjunct faculty at sixty-nine public institutions across the country, indicated that more than one-third of public university faculty have taught an online course.
Further diversifying faculty roles and the locations for faculty work is the growth of other forms of distance education, specifically the trend toward branch or satellite campuses. In addition to domestic branch campuses, typified by institutions such as Penn State and the University of California system, international branch campuses are on the rise, up 43 percent in just three years according to a 2009 study by the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (Jaschik, 2009). Unlike state or even nationwide branch campuses, international campuses particularly accentuate the phenomenon of geographically dispersed faculty: some of these faculty may never, or very rarely, set foot on their institutionās flagship campus. As a result of these factors and the varied instructional modalities now available, the traditional faculty role and related professional development needs are being redefined for both full-time and adjunct faculty.
Beyond Training to Development: The Challenges of Working with Geographically Dispersed Faculty
Conversations about the needs of geographically dispersed faculty typically focus on training faculty, primarily adjunct faculty, to teach and develop courses online (Cranton, 2005). The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universitiesā report (Seaman, 2009), The Paradox of Faculty Voices: Views and Experiences with Online Learning, which assessed campus support structures for full-time and adjunct faculty teaching online, affirms this well-established emphasis on technology training. Faculty respondents ranked only one of eight faculty support dimensions as acceptable: technology infrastructure. Tellingly, support dimensions related to curriculum development, student support, incentives for course development, and promotion, retention, and recognition were ranked below average. In addition, in her survey of faculty development programs in distance education, McQuiggan (2007) found that most programs center on āstep-by-stepā training processes, ādissemination of information,ā or the ādevelopment of specific skillsā (para. 39). She offered that āwhile there is evidence of faculty changes, there is little reporting of reflective thought, questioning of prior beliefs and assumptions about their classroom teaching, or rethinking their teaching philosophyā (para. 2). These activities (reflecting on and improving pedagogical practice, reenvisioning oneās instructional role and philosophy) move beyond training to align with the aims and transformative potential of faculty and instructional development.
Findings from Bartleyās (2001) study of twenty-seven higher education institutions within Ohio also confirm the tendency of faculty development programs in distance education to stress training over development. After surveying distance learning faculty and administrators and analyzing exemplary programs, Bartley concluded that ādistance teaching is not just about using technology; it is about perfecting a pedagogical art for effective learningā and requires a systematic approach to āinstitutional collaboration and innovationā (para. 1). Indeed, calls for collaboration across academic and administrative units are prevalent in conversations about online faculty development, as well as support for face-to-face teaching at branch campuses. The American Association of University Professors and the Canadian Association of University Teachersā 2009 joint statement asserted, āContinued pursuit of this path [establishing branch campuses, particularly internationally] will accelerate the casualization of the academic workforce, taking its toll on the quality of instruction as well as adversely affecting faculty rights.ā The statement concluded that faculty involvement and collaboration to create standards for curriculum development and faculty evaluation are paramount to the ongoing vitality of higher education (Jaschik, 2009, para. 2). The Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities echoed: āCampus leaders should maintain consistent communication with all faculty and administrators regarding the role and purpose of online learning programs as they relate to academic mission and academic quality . . . and use communication strategies that target and engage all faculty membersā (Seaman, 2009, p. 50, emphasis added).
As numbers of courses and academic programs offered by distance education modalities continue to increase, faculty developers face new opportunities and challenges to traditional models of faculty development and distance faculty training. Academic and administrative units are compelled to augment traditional technology trainingāoriented programs with new approaches that draw on the potential of faculty and instructional development and that work toward the goal of integrating geographically dispersed faculty.
Purpose of the Study
Our work in faculty development at institutions with multicampus structures and large online learning programs compelled the design of a research study that would connect us with campus leaders facing similar opportunities to design pedagogically focused, inclusive faculty development programs. Moreover, with two researchers personally experiencing working from a distance, we have observed firsthand the need for faculty at a distance to connect and interact with their on-campus peers in shared faculty development endeavors. Thus, we sought to:
- Identify faculty developers from diverse institutions across the country who have developed strategies for inclusive faculty development programming
- Identify the features of effective, inclusive faculty development programming
- Obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by the diversification of faculty roles and geographical locations
Participants and Method
Recognizing the complex contextual factors that affect the priorities and outcomes of faculty development at any institution, qualitative research was emphasized, consisting primarily of individual interviews with faculty developers who agreed to participate in the study by invitation. A list of potential participant institutions was compiled based on the Carnegie Basic Classifications and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2007) faculty development program types: faculty committeeārun programs, programs run by a single individual, centralized programs, and decentralized programs. Given our focus on learning from institutions with established distance learning programs, we cross-referenced institutional member lists from the Sloan Consortium and the Western Cooperative of Educational Technologies. Volunteer participants were recruited through e-mail invitation and asked to complete an informed-consent form prior to the interview.
A range of institutional classifications and faculty development program types was involved in the study. The majority of the institutions (approximately 70 percent) were POD members. In total, thirty institutions were involved in the study, with interviewees providing information on institutional dynamics and faculty development initiatives for geographically dispersed faculty. Represented in the sample are the following institution types: 73.3 percent public, 20 percent private nonprofit, and 6.7 percent private for profit. Using the ATL...
