Coaching is increasingly being used in higher education as a mechanism to meet the individualized professional development needs of faculty. Faculty coaching has been associated with positive organizational and pedagogical outcomes. However, missing from the research is insight into why faculty choose to participate in coaching and how the coaching process addresses the faculty members’ individual learning goals. To address these questions, an explanatory case study design was employed to focus on the bounded system of the coaching program within a Teaching and Learning Center of an online university. Data collection included faculty focus groups, responses to written, open-ended questionnaires from faculty coaches, and a review of the coaching registration database. An inductive analysis approach resulted in four themes, Affirmation of Current Practices, Expectations for the Coaching Experience, Reciprocal Institutional Relationships, and Teaching Support, and added to the body of knowledge about faculty coaching in online higher education. Introduction Quality instruction is critical to student success at all levels of education, including post-secondary settings (Gürgür, 2017; Kane et al., 2016; Thurlings, & den Brok, 2017). Faculty come to the learning environment with varying levels of pedagogical expertise. However, regardless of the faculty member’s ability, high-quality professional development is also necessary to ensure current, research-based practices are being implemented (Herman, 2012; Pesce, 2015; Saroyan & Trigwell, 2015). From the organizational perspective, the primary role of professional development in higher education is to improve faculty performance in the classroom (Bonura, et al., 2012). To meet strategic goals aligned with quality instruction, professional development is often prescribed by the organization. At other times, faculty development is an individual choice made by the faculty member to meet personal goals (Bedford, 2019). Traditionally, professional development opportunities for faculty are delivered through instructor-centered modalities including workshops, courses, and lectures (Dron & Anderson, 2014; Holmes & Prieto-Rodriquz, 2018; Stoten, 2020). However, these modalities are less effective than those that promote a learner-centered environment (Bedford, 2019; Gürgür, 2017). A learner-centered environment according to Hughey (2020) facilitates individualized learning in which the goal is to empower the learner. Learner-centered strategies promote engagement with content and encourage interaction among colleagues. They are designed to facilitate the construction of knowledge through academic discourse and the building of professional relationships (Cartner & Hallas, 2017; Saroyan & Trigwell, 2015). Learner-centered professional development has been shown to result in higher satisfaction and transfer of knowledge to the classroom setting (Bedford, 2019; Bloomberg, 2020; Krutka et al., 2017; McConnell et al., 2012). In addition, the most effective learning opportunities for faculty are those that allow individuals to learn from colleagues through a structured exchange of knowledge and expertise aligned to their own needs (Dron & Anderson, 2014; Krutka et al., 2017; McConnell, et al., 2012; Trust et al., 2017; Zhang & Wong, 2018). Leaders within institutions of higher education are becoming increasingly aware that effective professional development needs to capitalize on learner-centered, novel strategies. As a result, opportunities that incorporate learner-centered strategies, including coaching, are increasingly common within the faculty development continuum. Literature Review Purposeful professional development for faculty can ensure the use of instructional strategies to motivate and engage students for subsequent success (Bedford, 2019; Bloomberg & Grantham, 2018; Bonura et al., 2012). Faculty overwhelmingly report positive changes in attitudes, increased knowledge/skills, and improved behavior following participation in a faculty development opportunity (Steinert, 2017), particularly those in which participation is voluntary (Bedford, 2019). In addition, faculty report higher satisfaction and more positive outcomes as a result of professional development focused on their individual needs as well as those designed with engaging, interactive pedagogy (Bedford, 2019; Bloomberg, 2020; Krutka et al., 2017; McConnell et al., 2012; Urquhart, et al., 2013). Faculty require access to professional development opportunities that provide timely and relevant support for instructional concerns (Bonura et al., 2012). Supporting faculty who deliver instruction online requires additional support and resources to understand their unique needs (Bedford, 2019). Online faculty are dispersed, often work in isolation, and experience decreased confidence because of the lack of well-defined expectations. Faculty who deliver online instruction often view their role, and ultimately, their professional development needs, differently from face-to-face instructors (Martin, et al., 2019) or from those who engage in distance learning because of the 2020 Covid-pandemic restrictions (Hodges, et al., 2020). Relationships established within the coaching relationship can create opportunities for these online faculty to develop feelings of belongingness and collegiality in an otherwise detached workforce (Lewis & Ewing, 2016). Professional development is critical to organizational and individual effectiveness (Gürgür, 2017; Kane et al., 2016; Thurlings, & den Brok, 2017). To be effective, organizational and individual goals must be linked. Learner-centered professional development can specifically target that linkage, creating positive attitudes towards organizational goals (Rosenberg & An, 2019). Learner-centered professional development is described in terms throughout the literature that include personalized professional development (Özer, 2020), individualized professional development (Hughey, 2020), and heutagogy (Stoten, 2020). While nuanced in their approach, they are all situated within a supportive paradigm and create opportunities for individuals to establish personal goals based on individual professional needs. Learner-centered professional development, along with traditional types of training, can provide holistic support for faculty as they strive to incorporate research-based practices into their teaching repertoire (Emery, et al., 2021). Learner-centered professional development can be a component of a broad range of complementary learning activities for faculty (Seehusen, 2021; Wood, et al., 2016) because it provides the framework for faculty to incorporate instructional concepts into their teaching style (Bedford, 2019). It allows the learner to focus on the self and requires them to “own” their learning (Orrill, et al., 2006). However, learner-centered professional development needs may not be recognized as a direct outcome of traditional training; rather they may emerge in a non-linear progression (Stoten, 2020). Therefore, flexible strategies including one-on-one coaching may be more suitable to complement traditional organizational learning. Coaching is increasingly being used in higher education as a professional development mechanism with a focus on individualized needs. While coaching programs within institutions of higher education are structured in a variety of ways, coaching often includes a time-limited relationship between a coach and coaching participant (Desimone, 2017; Jacobs, 2018; Lofthouse, 2019; Nanduri, 2018; Seehusen, 2021). The coach typically comes to the relationship with greater levels of experience and expertise than the coaching participant, although the coaching participant may have skills and experience in specific areas that can provide reciprocity within the coaching relationship (Lofthouse, 2019; Nanduri, 2018). Coaching can be a collaborative, informal support mechanism or the result of a structured program for faculty members who perform below or exceed expectations (Desimone & Pak, 2017). In any case, a productive coaching process will focus on relationship building, reflection, and feedback, which are critical to the professional growth process (Lofthouse, 2019) and can have lasting effects on performance (Nanduri, 2018). While much of the early literature focused on coaching in the k-2 face-to-face learning environments (Desimone, 2017) recent attention has been given to this strategy to support higher education faculty. Many coaching techniques for the higher education population rely on self-reflection and peer feedback strategies, which have been demonstrated to be effective techniques for continuous instructional improvement (Gürgür, 2017; Lofthouse, 2019; Nanduri, 2018). In addition, coaching outcomes are reported as generally positive and those who have participated in coaching report increased morale, high-quality collaborations, and a better understanding of proven pedagogical practices (Bloomberg, 2020; McDowell et al., 2014). Positive coaching outcomes are associated with the individual as well as with the organization. Coaching facilitates the development of collaborative partnerships and relationships that extend the learning among faculty and across disciplines (Gürgür, 2017; McDowell et al., 2014). It provides a venue in which the faculty member can address individual goals and have a voice in their learning through reflection and feedback (Stover et al., 2011). Faculty coaching is also associated with increased morale, a better understanding of proven pedagogical practices (Bloomberg, 2020; McDowell et al., 2014), and increased motivation (Cox, 2012). Participation in coaching by faculty provides for more positive learning environments and higher satisfaction for the individual (Passmore & Rehman; 2012). Finally, coaching can also provide internal and psychological motivation for individual faculty members, which results in higher qua
This research study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, course delivery modality, and student engagement on student performance in data collected from business statistics courses at a medium-sized southeastern public university. Our data analysis suggests student engagement and disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are the strongest predictors of overall student performance. While course delivery modality did not seem to have a significant impact on student performance in and of itself, statistical analysis suggests there is a significant impact on the performance of students enrolled in online courses during the Spring 2020 semester despite the fact there were no emergency changes to the delivery modality of their class. An important takeaway for distance learning administrators is “other factors” outside of the time spent engaged in completing course requirements seem to have had a significant, negative impact on student outcomes in the Spring 2020 semester. Further research is needed to better understand the interaction between general societal disruptions caused by COVID-19 restrictions and student outcomes for the online course delivery modality.
The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may be the greatest disruptor to higher education in over a century. This interruption touched every aspect of campus life - residence halls shuttered, dining facilities turned to take-out only, and academic classes had to find a way to continue to be delivered with accuracy and efficiency in a remote platform. Antiquated hardware and software, technology inadequacies to handle an increased online load, and faculty and administration inexperience with such disturbance contributed to the academic chaos. However, future planning and investment present an opportunity in many aspects of the college experience, to bring together the academic community during pandemic or catastrophic disruption.
Globalization, competition, technology, and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic are causing disruptions to the nature of work and forcing organizations to quickly adapt. To support employee learning and adaptability, many organizations employ instructional designers to create training, develop performance solutions, and lead learning initiatives. Instructional design is inherently complex, and it can be challenging to manage large instructional design projects effectively. Project management is one field of knowledge that could provide insight and strategies for managing instructional design effectively. Some research exists related to instructional design and project management. However, there is limited research on which project management practices are most important in managing instructional design (ID) projects. Further, some of the existing studies are qualitative with limited participants, making it difficult to generalize the results. This study surveyed experienced instructional designers, project managers, and managers of instructional design to identify the most important instructional design project management strategies. First, a systematic review of instructional design project management literature was conducted to identify key project management competencies. Next, a survey instrument was created based on the results of the systematic analysis. We employed a convenience sampling procedure to implement an online, cross-sectional survey. Eighty-six instructional design professionals completed the survey. The main research question results included the six most crucial instructional design project management competencies in instructional design projects. Results indicate no statistically significant differences in the most critical instructional design project management competencies based on role or industry. Critical competencies include practice ethical behavior, keep the project and the team organized, remain flexible and adapt, communicate effectively with all stakeholders, ensure tasks are completed, and convey ideas clearly and concisely. Results of the study are shared, including those related specifically to higher education.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in how health science education is delivered (Sandars et al., 2020). With face-to-face learning, such as lab and classroom interactions, largely unavailable during the pandemic, institutions have been required to quickly shift the learning environment to a fully virtual format. While in-person clinical training for students effectively came to a halt, the University of Saint Augustine for Health Sciences (USAHS) leveraged its technology infrastructure, clinical simulation resources and expertise, digital learning resources, and innovative culture to implement a continuity plan for both faculty and students. Due to federal and local regulations related to social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, programs in the medical and rehabilitative sciences have been faced with the unique challenge of converting hands-on laboratory activities to an online format. This conversion has been complicated by rapidly evolving standards regarding activities acceptable to meet accrediting body guidelines for fieldwork and/or clinical education. However, most accrediting bodies have sanctioned the use of virtual labs to maintain continuity of instruction by preparing and in some cases substituting virtual for hands-on learning activities. This paper will provide an overview of the strategic learning framework that is being employed by the University in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and share practical case examples of how faculty have used university resources and support to not only maintain academic continuity, but to deliver excellence during virtual instruction.
The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the dramatic shift to online learning for professors and students. In addition to rapidly building capacity to teach and to learn online, professors were removed from their professional communities. Social learning opportunities which exist in the workplace are essential to brainstorm ideas, to discuss teaching practices, and to problem-solve situations (Gerken et al., 2016). However, some universities focused on formal technical training to rapidly build capacity, e.g. how-to video conference, how to share files. A qualitative study was conducted to investigate the impact of complementing the formal technology training provided by the university with weekly Professional Learning Communities (PLC) during the unexpected online transition. Full and part-time faculty members from two departments were invited to participate. After 10 sessions, the findings revealed significant community-building that ranged from self-care to professional support. The participants evolved from simply sharing tools and asking technical how-to questions to deep discussions around online learning pedagogy. The PLC approach allowed the faculty to move from simply learning online teaching tools to engaging in meaningful discussions around online teaching pedagogy and improving student learning.
Much of the online education literature stresses the importance of teacher presence. The most common techniques used by online teachers to achieve presence are frequently posting written announcements, providing clear written instructions on assignments, offering students meaningful written feedback, and timely responding to emails. However, if students fail to carefully read, they gloss over or they completely ignore these instructor efforts, a teacher’s influence is muted, and student learning outcomes may suffer. Indeed, in an empirical test of over 500 students this hypothesis is validated. Specifically, accounting for GPA, major, age, prerequisite knowledge, student satisfaction, effort, gender, and outside distractions, students who did not follow instructions on the initial course assignment, indicating a propensity to ignore instructor guidance, earned a significantly lower grade on the comprehensive final exam than students who followed instructions. In subsequent iterations of the same course, when the instructor frequently stressed to students the importance of reading announcements and instructions and when those items were provided to students in audio as well as in written format, this negative consequence on learning outcomes was mitigated. Our study and findings suggest that teachers can improve the learning outcomes of a significant number of students in an online class by using these same simple techniques.
Various instructor qualities have been shown to have variable influences student outcomes in online courses. In this study, the impact of faculty quality on student performance was examined by comparing student performance when taught by excellent faculty and average faculty (determined through administrative evaluations). We examined 328 student grades from a 2019 January term 200 level elementary statistics course. Student performance measures included final course scores, grade distributions and pass rates. Learning modality (asynchronous vs. synchronous) and course design (e.g. syllabus, textbook, assignment and assessment design, etc.) as confounding variables were controlled through the template approach implemented at the study institution. The statistical analysis of the influence of modality ensured that modality was a controlled variable as there was no statistically significant difference in student outcomes across the online course modalities studied. There was no statistically significant difference in learner outcomes between students who were taught by faculty rated excellent compared to those taught by faculty rated average. It is likely that the standardized nature of the courses combined with the mandatory faculty training in online teaching and learning best practices minimized differences between instructors. Future research should examine more specific indicators of faculty quality such as social presence in online discussions and teaching presence in feedback. Furthermore, future research could examine the influence of faculty gender on student outcomes in online modalities.
Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to comprehensively describe and justify the case design of an approach for the integration of synchronous virtual meetings to support nontraditional online doctoral candidates. As more nontraditional doctoral students are completing their degree programs virtually through online universities, the nature of their degree progression and the development of critical knowledge and skills differ from traditional on-campus programs. Method: The case design of an approach to integrating synchronous online interactive meetings to support these learners is identified and justified through references to research in the learning sciences including sociocultural learning, heutagogy, and constructivist instructional design methods. The instructional design process resulted in a scaled schedule of interactions linked to the development of specific cognitive processes, academic skills, and expert knowledge required by doctoral candidates for successful completion of their degree programs. Results: This case design study resulted in identification of developmentally phased synchronous interactions designed to support online nontraditional doctoral candidates. The interactions identified were linked to the development of critical processes, skills, and knowledge to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the candidate’s progress. Conclusions: The results identified how the integration of synchronous virtual meetings to support online nontraditional doctoral candidates throughout their programs can both increase the development of the advanced knowledge required by these learners and the collaboration needed between mentor and mentee for the online learners to be successful.
Fostering student academic leadership in an online environment can be challenging. How can a program provide peer support to students while equipping them for current and future leadership roles? Discussion will include an analysis of the Doctoral Graduate Assistant Program and Doctoral Advisory Board opportunities at American College of Education.
