Elizabeth Ciabocchi, Ed.D. Amy Ginsberg, Ph.D. Long Island University

1. Blended Learning Faculty Development Practices & Models in Traditional Higher Education Institutions Sloan-C Blended Learning Conference Milwaukee, WI July 8, 2013 Elizabeth Ciabocchi, Ed.D. Amy Ginsberg, Ph.D. Long Island University

2. Presentation overview • Who We Are • The Context of This Work • Survey and Results • Next Steps

3. The Proliferation of Online Education • 69.1 % of chief academic leaders say online learning is critical to long-term strategy – the highest it has been for 10 years. • Approximately 25% of all faculty teach online courses. • 6.7 million students (32%--an all-time high) are taking at least 1online course; 2/3 attend not-for-profit institutions. Allen & Seaman, 2013 Allen, Seaman, Lederman & Jaschik, 2012 Aslanian & Klinefelter, 2013

4. Training for Online Teaching • Nearly all IHE’s (94%) have training or mentoring. • Internally-run courses are most common, followed by informal mentoring, formal mentoring, certification programs, and externally-run training courses. • 25 types of faculty development programs identified in non-profit IHE’s with TLDU’s. Allen & Seaman, 2011 Herman, 2012

5. What About Blended Education? • Public institutions (79%) offer more blended courses than private institutions. • Resources allocated to blended course design and delivery suggest its priority for U.S. higher education. • Faculty development is critical, but less research is focused on it. • Our interest: traditional higher education institutions, where much of this growth is taking place. McGee & Reis, 2012

6. Current Knowledge Is Fragmented and Limited • Journal articles written by institutional representatives • Journal articles on a particular aspect of faculty development • References from limited number of books (as helpful as they are!) • Websites and other resources from select institutions. Here is what we know so far…

7. Structure & Implementation of Faculty Development Programs Influenced by: • Faculty characteristics & capabilities • Institutional context & resources Training varies widely: • Requirement • Mode • Distributed or centralized • Focus • Responsible unit • Incentives • Authentication of readiness • Certification

8. In sum... Faculty development for blended course instruction is all over the map!

9. So the next question is… What works?

10. Existing Literature Points To... • Incentives • Improving teaching/learning effectiveness • Program design rooted in best practices • Flexible training schedules • Multiple delivery methods • Administrative & financial support • Technological resources • Ongoing program assessment & improvement • Skilled facilitators/trainers

11. And another question… How does faculty development for blended instruction relate to the institution’s mission and strategic plan?

12. Existing Philosophical Approaches ≠ One Size Fits All • Community-based programs (faculty learning community models) • Programs grounded in adult & transformative learning theories • Focus on guidance & match between faculty members’ dispositions and curricular needs/innovations(Babson College)

13. Our Study sheds light on 3 research questions and their interrelationships • How are faculty development programs for blended teaching and learning structured and implemented? • Which elements of the faculty development program for blended teaching and learning have been most/least successful, and why? • What is the underlying philosophy that drives institutional decisions regarding faculty development in blended teaching and learning?

14. Method Participants • 500 institutional representatives identified via membership in 3 professional organizations Measure • 17-item survey (quantitative & qualitative elements) in 3 sections: • Structure and implementation of faculty development program • Perceptions of the most and least successful aspects and recommendations for improvement, and, • Relationship of faculty development toinstitutions’ strategic plan and underlying institutional philosophy Procedure • Electronic distribution and reminder email

15. Results – 109 (usable) respondents More public than private institutions in the sample Most institutions recommended faculty development for blended instruction

16. Public VS. Private Institutions Offering and/or Requiring Training Public institutions -Far more likely to recommend (vs. require)faculty development for blended instruction Private institutions -More likely to require, but less likely to recommend or offer,faculty development for blended instruction

17. Types of programs including blended courses: Public VS. Private Institutions • Most institutions, both public and private, offered blended courses primarily in face-to-face programs. • Public institutions were more likely than private institutions to offer online programs including blended courses.

18. Types of faculty development for blended instruction

19. faculty development Delivery modes for blended instruction

20. Responsibility for faculty development in blended instruction

21. Incentives for faculty development in blended instruction

22. Most successful elements of faculty development programs

23. Recommendations for improvement of faculty development programs

24. Importance of faculty development to institutional strategic plan Overall Sample Public vs. Private

25. Findings consistent with the literature • Most common types of faculty development programs offered for online/blended instruction at institutions studied, i.e., internally-offered programs, informal mentoring and formal mentoring • Variability of institutional practices and faculty development models for blended instruction • Variety of training opportunities and delivery formats, creating convenience and flexibility for faculty viewed as critical to success.

26. Discussion & recommendations • Require training • Provide incentives • Offer flexibility and convenience • Allocate sufficient human, financial and technical resources • Ensure that the faculty development program has a strong pedagogical design.

27. Discussion & recommendations, cont’d • Data reveal complexity of interrelationshipsamong factors related to structure, implementation and success of faculty development for blended course instruction. • Findings provoke questions for future investigation.

28. Discussion and recommendations, cont’d • Public institutionsgave greater priority to, and more often offered and recommended, faculty development for blended course instruction than private institutions. • Private institutions were less likely to offer faculty development for blended course instruction than public institutions, but when it was offered, the training was more likely to be required. • Underlying factors to further explore: • Relationship of blended learning to institutional mission • Resource allocation & funding • Priority and scope of previously established online programs

29. Questions? Thank you for attending! Contact Information: Liz.ciabocchi@liu.edu Amy.ginsberg@liu.edu

30. references Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, I.E. & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States 2011. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D. & Jaschik, S.. Digital faculty: Professors, teaching and technology, 2012. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group & Inside Higher Ed. Aslanian, C.B. & Klinefelter, D.L. (2013). Online college students 2013: Comprehensive data on demands and preferences. Louisville, KY: The Learning House, Inc. Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional development programs available to onlineinstructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87-106. McGee & Reis (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7-22.