Professional Development for Faculty in Virtual/Online Environments: A Case Study

• Autorzy: Traci van Prooyen
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Because the number of online courses, as well as the scope of online education, continues to grow, the educators' quality professional development allowing to teach in these formats is paramount (Desimone, 2011; Dysart & Weckerle, 2015). As we seek how to engage and deepen student learning in online, blended, and distance education and training environments, our professional development should mimic and model best practices of developing and learning in these unique environments (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom, 2001). Flexibility and strengths of virtual/online environments provide not only opportunities for students to learn but also open prospects for professional development of the faculty. The possibility to take more traditional face-to-face professional development expands now to the online environment and all the advantages that environment affords. The author of this paper presents case studies from a small two-year college in the Midwest of the United States. They provide explanations and show the results of three different types of faculty online professional development. Moreover, this paper also includes a summary of collected data and additional reflections concerning the online professional development for faculty. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Blended learning; High-tech; e-learning; State education; Online courses

PL

Nauczanie hybrydowe; Nowe technologie; Zdalne nauczanie; Szkolnictwo państwowe; Kursy online

• Czasopismo: e-mentor
• Rocznik: 2018
• Numer: nr 5
• Strony: 36--43

Twórcy

autor

Traci van Prooyen

Bibliografia

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
• Barseghian, T. (May 26, 2011). Iterating and ideating: Teachers think like designers. Mind/Shift. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/11984/what-happens-when-teachers-think-like-designers.
• Condon, W., Iverson, E. R., Manduca, C. A., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Dede, C. (Ed.). (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models and methods. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
• Desimone, L. M. (2011). A Primer on Effective Professional Development. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 68-71. DOI: 10.1177/003172171109200616
• Dysart, S. A., & Weckerle, C. (2015). Professional development in higher education: A model for meaningful technology integration. "Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice", 14, 255-265.
• Jacob, A., & McGovern, K. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. Retrieved from https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf
• Knowles M. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
• Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000 (NCES 2001-088). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
• Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Quality Matters (2014). Quality matters higher education rubric. Annapolis, MD: QM.
• Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. "Learning and instruction", 4(4), 295-312.
• Woodbury, S. & Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). Overcoming the paradox of change without difference: A model of change in the arena of fundamental school reform. Educational Policy, 16(5), 763-782. DOI:10.1177/089590402237312

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.15219/em77.1387