University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

(USC Thesis Other)

Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

1

WILL SCHOOL-BASED ONLINE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT BE AN EFFECTIVE
TOOL FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL GROWTH?
by
Marion Philadelphia
_________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013

Copyright © 2013 Marion Philadelphia
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

2

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation chair Dr. Patricia Tobey for her progressive,
innovative, and creative approach to dissertation projects and for inspiring me to develop a
product that has practical use for faculty and contributes to fostering teaching and instruction that
meets the needs of 21
st
century learners. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee
members Dr. Patrick Crispen and Dr. Brandon Martinez for their invaluable input and support to
bringing this dissertation project to completion. Further, I would like to thank the faculty and
technical personnel at the study site who embraced the online faculty development forum and
helped it come alive. Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background 9
Purpose 11
Summary 14
Definitions 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 15
Current Issues in Faculty Development 17
Barriers to Faculty Development 19
Workload Issues 20
Institutional Culture 21
Impact on Faculty Motivation 24
Faculty Development Expansion Needs 28
Reflection 29
Double-Loop Learning 31
Leadership 31
Pedagogy 33
Creativity and Creative Thinking 35
Defining Creative Person, Process, and Product 36
Creativity and Constructivism 37
Creative Project-Based and Problem-Solving Strategies 37
Three application attempts of infusing the curriculum with creativity 39
Utilizing Universal Design and Technology for Faculty Development 41
Principles of Universal Design and Faculty Learning 42
Pairing Universal Design and Technology 45
Faculty perceptions of technology 45
Applying universal design principles and technology to support
faculty learning
46
Adding structural design and sourcing content for faculty
development
49
Conclusion 53
Chapter Three: Methodology 56
Site and Sample Population 58
Study Site 58
Participant Population 59
Instrumentation 60
Data Collection and Length of Study 65
Data Analysis 67
Summary 68

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

4

Chapter Four: Results 69
Context 70
Population and Sample 71
Survey 72
Survey Results 73
Site Usage Reports 85
Interviews 88
Interviewees 89
Interview Questions 90
Interview Outcomes 90
Theme one: Interest to increase knowledge in pedagogy 90
Theme two: Exposure to content showed interest and motivation 91
Theme three: Exposure to content spurred reflection 93
Theme four: Engagement nurtured culture and community 94
Theme five: Need for time and institutional support 96
Theme six: Need for development guides 97
Observations: Faculty and Use of Instructional Technology 98
Webinars 99
Discussion Boards 101
Summary 102
Chapter Five: Discussion 103
Findings 104
FDF Builds Faculty Motivation and Community 105
FDF Supports Faculty Reflection 106
FDF Supports Faculty Learning About Multiple Means of Instruction,
Creativity and Innovation
108
FDF Usage Confirms Current Problems in Faculty Development 109
Limitations 111
Implications for Practice 116
Conclusions 119
References 122
Appendix A: End-of-Study User Survey 136
Appendix B: Tables for Chapter Three 142

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

5

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Applied Frames Reflecting Teacher Perspectives of Students and Classroom 32
Table 3.1: Faculty Participant Groups 59
Table 3.2: Construct Variables of Faculty Engagement With the FDF 62
Table 4.1: Faculty Positions, Number of Respondents, and Site Usage 73
Table 4.2: Unique Faculty Site Users 74
Table 4.3: User Access Frequencies of Survey Participant Faculty 74
Table 4.4: Faculty Reasons for not Using the FDF 75
Table 4.5: Users and Non-Users Impressions or Suggestions for FDF Improvement 76
Table 4.6: Overall Assessment of FDF 77
Table 4.7: Overall Usefulness of Content Sections 78
Table 4.8: Usefulness of Content Sections About Teaching and Learning 78
Table 4.9: FDF’s Effectiveness Promoting Interest and Creativity in Instruction 80
Table 4.10: Changes or Planned Changes to Teaching Approaches 82
Table 4.11: Personal Growth and Colleague Interaction 83
Table 4.12: Access From FDF to Other Sites 84
Table 4.13: Workshop Attendance as a Result of FDF Visit 85
Table 4.14: Monthly Faculty Overall Usage Summary 86
Table 4.15: Number of Page Visits Grouped by Content Area and Term 87
Table 4.16: Faculty Interviewees 89
Table B1 (Appendix B): Variables and Type of Analysis for Research Questions 142
Table B2 (Appendix B): Constructs, Sample FDF Content Modules, and Type of Analysis 143

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

6

List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Concurrent Transformational Design. 60
Figure 3.2: Data Collection and Length of Study Overview 66

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

7

Abstract
This case study was built on the premise that faculty in higher education, in order to be
effective core facilitators of student learning, need additional development beyond their fields of
expertise—specifically, in areas relevant to teaching such as pedagogy, creativity and innovation,
multiple means of instruction, and instructional technology.
The study hypothesized that over 300 faculty at the business school of a private
university will be effectively served with customized school-based online support that they can
access just-in-time, or as needed. Accordingly, the author created an online Faculty
Development Forum (FDF) under consideration of and displaying content about instructional
methods, concepts, and principles, such as Universal Design (UD). The launch of the FDF
coincided with the start of the study.
The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to investigate the effectiveness of the FDF,
if it succeeds in mitigating barriers for faculty to engage with learning about pedagogy and if it
provides a source for knowledge and thought exchange with peers. Findings indicated that
faculty accepted and engaged with this form of online professional development. However, the
study also suggested that school-based initiatives emphasizing the importance of pedagogy, goal
setting and alignment are necessary as external motivators for faculty engagement with
professional development.
This study informs further improvement and expansion of the FDF and can be a model
for schools at other institutions of higher education.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In 21
st
century teaching and learning, nurturing Creative Thinking (CT) in college
students is increasingly important. Our age is driven by the fast globalization of social and
economic systems, by technological advancements and by the specialization and even
fragmentation of knowledge as disciplines grow more complex. New knowledge often results
when disciplines interface, or is generated or enhanced through digital media and open access to
information (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). However, individuals are challenged by information
overflow and to think creatively is vital to support their ability to cope with chaos, constant
change (ambiguity) and insecurities. They need to be able to recognize and navigate emerging
trends, realize their implications and opportunities in order to understand their world and add
value to their (global) communities (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006; Smyre, 2008; White & Glickman,
2007).
As skills sets for future employees are changing quickly, curricula have to constantly and
swiftly adapt; not only to provide a valuable education experience for the students, but also
ensure that universities’ four-year undergraduate higher education is a viable option that answers
to the market demands of the 21
st
century. In this market, the “customers” of higher education,
parents, students, future employers, are demanding a return on investment and, quite poignantly,
question what institutions are doing to keep their faculty up-to-date (Davis, 2003; Keeling &
Hersh, 2012; White & Glickman, 2007).
Faculty in higher education is at the forefront to foster not only critical thinking, but by
extension, creative thinking and creativity in the most diverse student population to date (Smyre,
2008). And with wider access to education for students, their presumed technology savvy
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

9

requires greater flexibility on part of the faculty who needs to know how to apply technology to
broaden the learning experience.
Background
Little doubt exists that faculty is just as challenged as their students to navigate
information flow, has little time for reflection, does not consider or ignores the importance of
creativity, and is under pressure to be abreast of domain specific knowledge developments and
technological advancements (Csikszentmihalyi, 2006). At the same time, they are challenged to
research and create new knowledge in an economic climate that hardly will reduce workload
conditions and research obligations for faculty (Kezar & Lester, 2009). In order to be leaders in
education and role models for students, faculty development with a focus on creativity and
innovation is a necessary continuous effort to promote teaching creativity and teaching creatively
in higher education and to provide stimulating education for the next generation of learners.
Few ideas have been researched to look at how instructors can provide alternative paths
for these diverse populations, and many faculty lack training in pedagogy, instruction design and
instructional technologies. Pedagogy is not an integral part of graduate studies which aim to
train researchers and not teachers. Likewise, higher education increasingly employs teaching
faculty who come to the institution because of their non-academic professional expertise but
have no training in teaching, learning theories, and practices (Sorcinelli, 2007). In fact, the
number of non-tenure track faculty has increased significantly in the last 20 years constituting
about one third of all faculty. While faculty development needs differ between non-tenure and
tenure track faculty, all need opportunities for professional growth so that they can create
curriculum and learning content that aims for equitable access and that leads to desired outcomes
(Gappa, 2008).
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

10

Two of the emerging practices to provide this access are the application of Universal
Design (UD) principles and the integration of technology and media to enhance teaching and
learning. In detail, Universal Design for Instruction (UDI) and Universal Design for Learning
(UDL) are an extension of the original concepts for universal physical access for individuals with
disabilities to provide universal access to education for all populations. Since their inception, the
concepts of UDI/UDL have expanded in many directions and have taken on an increasingly
important place value; particularly, in response to external pressures on higher education, such as
the increased diversity and internationalization of student populations, the challenges to integrate
digital technology with the curriculum, and the demand for increased institutional accountability
for learning outcomes (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006; Zeff, 2007).
Assuming that these efforts are well underway, and considering the internationalization in
higher education, it is now timely to also apply UD principles to support faculty so that they
build or sustain their self-efficacy and engage their learners in a creative and innovative
knowledge exchange and expansion—and grow their ability to tailor learning contents and
pedagogy to the needs of all their populations. To date, many different approaches for faculty
development exist; for example, campus-wide and school-centered workshops, or peer mentoring
at the departmental level. These are traditional development approaches. While workshops have
high merit, provide a way to network, and can be very informative and inspiring, scheduling
conflicts and time pressures make it difficult for faculty to engage in these types of development.
Peer mentoring, on the other hand, is often met with suspicion and presumably serves more to
stir up faculty’s lack of self-efficacy than to enhance it, or faculty heeds judgment that the
mentor might not completely understand their teaching intentions or be knowledgeable about
their expertise to provide critical and constructive feed-forward (Andrade, 2006; Kezar, 2005).
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

11

Consequently, Chapter Two reviewed research that explored barriers to faculty
development, such as workload issues, institutional culture, and their impacts on faculty
motivation. Further, it investigated research about faculty development needs to establish that a
shift in mindset (e.g., through double-learning), gaining knowledge about pedagogy, realizing
time for reflection and assuming leadership are necessary foundations for faculty to develop their
creativity and sense for innovation that they then can translate into their curricula and teaching
approaches. Because these, in turn, can be enhanced through UD methods and technology, the
literature review exposed that faculty not only needs to learn about these methods, but also to
experience learning with them in order to be able to integrate those with their teaching mission.
Purpose
Building on the premises that no one-size-fits-all approach exists when it comes to
faculty development and more creative approaches for faculty development are timely, this
dissertation hypothesized that faculty in a business school will be effectively served by an
Internet-based professional development forum that is customized to their needs. This online
forum exposes faculty to relevant topics in pedagogy and provides a space for knowledge and
idea exchange with peers and experts on demand or just-in-time—in other words, when faculty
needs development or has time to engage in it, and not only when development opportunities are
offered through the university, their school, or unit. The intention is not to replace physical
workshops, mentoring, or other forms of professional development—rather, the goal is to
enhance these opportunities and provide an alternative that involves faculty in learning with and
not only about technology. In fact, this web-based development forum is an expression of a
heightened interest and focus on multiple means of furthering faculty’s professional growth in
regards to teaching in this so-called “Age of the Teacher” (Sorcinelli et al., 2006, p. 8).
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

12

The web-based faculty development platform at the study site is a product of this research
and its launch was concurrent with the start of this study. The Faculty Development Forum
(FDF) was continuously expanded throughout the study period of four months and beyond. In its
intent it is designed to aim at intrinsically motivating faculty to continuously engage in learning,
knowledge exchange and creation to an extent that will make the question of their professional
responsibility to not become obsolete redundant. The FDF and its uses were developed under
consideration of UD principles because these have proven to foster inclusiveness, engagement
and motivation, and to enable universal access (Davis, 2003; Higbee, 2006). Further, as Zeff
(2007) noted, UD offers a fresh lens that provides plausibility for faculty who might otherwise
resist acknowledging a need for development. In addition, because the use of media and
technology per se has not proven to be more effective in motivating and facilitating learning than
an in-person environment, the use of an internet platform must be considered primarily as a
vehicle for information access, collaboration and exchange (Clark, Yates, Early, & Moulton,
2010). Content for the FDF was aggregated and sourced with the faculty learner at the business
school in mind and under consideration of employing selected elements of relevant instructional
design methods that Merrill (2002) labeled the Five Star System, or the demonstration,
application, task-centered, activation, and integration principles.
The study researched how faculty responded to the module and if and how it succeeds in
providing an environment that motivates faculty to participate in the online development.
Further, the study explored if faculty learned about pedagogy and gained an understanding of
creativity and innovation, and if they believed the module will support their efforts to provide
equitable and engaging learning environments for students in the 21
st
century. Accordingly, the
research question and its sub-questions were as follows:
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

13

1. To what extent did the web-based development platform provide a universally accessible
and acceptable source that effectively motivated faculty to engage in professional
development?
1.1 To what extent did faculty use the web-based platform?
1.2 To what extent did faculty indicate interest in further learning about issues in
instruction?
1.3 To what extent is the web-based development platform effective in exposing faculty
to multiple means of learning and instruction, such as universal design in learning and
instruction?
1.4 To what extent is the web-based platform effective in augmenting or fostering faculty
creativity for curriculum innovation, such as project-based learning or using
instructional technology?
1.5 To what extent did faculty engage in thought exchange with peers on this platform?
These research questions were investigated through a concurrent transformative mixed-
methods approach (Creswell, 2009). The results and discussion of the study informed faculty
development at the site of investigation first. However, the FDF has the potential to be a model
for other schools and inform research and practices in faculty development on a broader scale.
Further, the study sought to propose that professional development for university faculty cannot
lag behind trends in education driven by the demands of society in our world today and that
professional development leads to higher engagement of faculty. In turn, engagement leads to
more effective teaching, increased accountability, and ultimately produces better student learning
outcomes. Accordingly, the study served to draw greater attention to the importance of
pedagogical knowledge for all faculty to better support our next generations of students. And,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

14

hopefully, administrations will acknowledge these benefits and allow for faculty to allot time to
these efforts despite economic constraints. Lastly, improved faculty development should also
serve to break down perceived barriers between teaching and research faculty, support greater
understanding and appreciation of each other, and open up opportunities for collaboration.
Summary
This chapter has presented background and relevance for the issues of faculty
development in the 21
st
century. It has provided an argument that faculty development needs to
be reconsidered and that new approaches for it have to be promoted. Accordingly, key areas for
the review of the literature, the research questions and method were identified. The study
ultimately sought to support faculty who have made it their profession and mission to educate
future generations.
Definitions
For the purpose of this dissertation, the term universal design (UD) will be used, which
includes concepts of UDI and UDL. The Faculty Development Forum (FDF) is the fictional title
of the web-based faculty development site.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

15

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Faculty must take into account teaching a highly diverse student body, including
international students and those with disabilities; accordingly, curricula and teaching methods
need to be adapted and should be easily customizable to suit these populations (Davis, 2003).
Researchers Ameny-Dixon (2004), Andrade (2006), and Smyre (2008) further substantiated that
the world needs individuals who are open-minded and capable of rethinking traditional principles.
Smyre (2008), in particular, emphasized that traditional creativity and critical thinking needs to
evolve into a new type of creativity that seeks to connect divergent ideas in order to establish
concepts, innovate products, conceive methods, and develop services that expand on traditional
experience and knowledge. Students should be able to identify trends in their early stages and
conceive strategies and generate ideas; they should be poised to discover connections and new
knowledge (O’Neal, 2007; Smyre, 2008). Clearly, the need for a creative and innovative, multi-
perspectival and interactive curriculum is non-negotiable (Smyre, 2008). Teaching is being
called upon to enable students to think in non-linear patterns so that they can respond to rapid
change and uncertainty. In other words, building on the premise that our society needs creative
knowledge workers, faculty is no exception and needs to develop curricula, teaching methods
and assessment tools that are effective in an international, linguistically and culturally diverse
classroom and that answer to the multiple levels of prior knowledge and abilities in students—
this includes international students, students with disabilities, students with varying maturity in
the same class level, and, most of all students who are savvy users of technology (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Pink, 2008).
Faculty needs to understand what their own creativity is, how they can utilize it and how
they can fully integrate it with their profession, and that faculty development itself has to be
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

16

creative to model innovative approaches. Wisdom (2010), for example, stated poignantly that
faculty has to learn what it means to teach creatively and effectively and to become professional
teachers. Many researchers rightfully claimed that, to date, most faculty development efforts are
often stalled due to workload, research demands, time constraints and working environments that
do not foster collegiality, reciprocal support, or learning and developing new teaching
approaches (e.g., Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Davis, 2003; Jacobs & Winslow, 2004;
Kezar & Lester, 2009). In addition, the economic climate in the 2010s is increasingly concerned
with budget restrictions and administrations in higher education are hardly able to free up funds
to support innovative faculty development (Grummon, 2009). Another hindering factor in the
United States higher education climate, noted by Camblin and Steger (2000) and by White and
Glickman (2007), is that our institutions have reached a level of maturity that shares the
characteristics of mature enterprise; namely, to be risk-adverse and not readily open to new ideas,
to be self-satisfied and not accepting a need for reflection and openness necessary for innovation,
and to be encumbered with high operating costs. All these issues provide infertile grounds for
institutional and educational creativity and innovation—and for faculty development.
In the following, the literature review, in a deductive approach, examines issues in and
barriers to current faculty development, including workload issues, problems in institutional
culture, and lack of motivation. This supports the argument of professional development to
emphasize and embrace concepts such as a focus on reflection, double-loop learning, leadership,
and pedagogy. Because creativity and creative thinking are a pervasive topic bracing the
discussion, a closer look at what defines creativity and creative thinking in this context appeared
necessary. Lastly, the literature review establishes why universal design paired with technology,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

17

and considering instructional principles like Merrill’s (2002) Five Star System, offers an
applicable framework as a foundation to create online faculty development and content for it.
Current Issues in Faculty Development
This section takes a closer look at broader current issues in faculty development and their
effects on faculty in order to provide a background for the relevance of attempting new
approaches to faculty development. Issues include the discussion about pedagogy, faculty
collaboration and opening up the debate about what kind of development might be feasible.
Professional development for faculty traditionally was geared at increasing domain
knowledge and not at developing their pedagogy (Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi, 2007).
Clark, Feldon, van Merriënboer, Yates, and Early (2008) further pointed to this problem by
discussing issues like expert ignorance, ineffective collaboration, competition, faculty isolation,
and the effects of budgetary constraints. They argued in particular that the aspect of domain
knowledge development and growing expertise might result in a greater cognitive separation
between faculty and student learner because the expert might fail to understand the layman
learner and, claiming that faculty is often stuck in this pattern, supported that pedagogy training
needs to be part of the development discussion.
Kezar (2005) also recognized these problems and pointed out that workload and
motivational issues augment them and that collaboration attempts are often encouraged as a
“cure all” to mitigate these problems. In fact, Kezar documented a trend in higher education
from individual to collaborative approaches for faculty work; in other words, efforts to perform
inter-disciplinary research, team-teaching, etc., which then support professional development.
However, more than 50% of those collaborative efforts fail mostly because institutions are not
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

18

structured to support these efforts. Thus, the researcher applied case studies to examine how
four institutions actually arrived at fostering a collaborative environment.
Kezar (2005) identified a three-stages model of collaboration: (a) building commitment
to collaboration, (b) commitment to collaboration, and (c) sustaining collaboration (pp. 846-850).
This model emphasized the importance not only of a managerial or administrative commitment
to such effort, but also of moral considerations seeking to establish a common value system and
egalitarianism. However, this commitment is not easy to build when the collaboration remains a
concept and has no external support—such as directives from institutional leadership. In
addition, collaboration, arguably, can only be fruitful when individual faculty is confident and
self-efficacious in their research and teaching. Kezar’s three-stage model is useful because it
pointed to fundamental prerequisites necessary for any type of faculty development.
Bensimon and O’Neil (1998) also confirmed the impact of a lack of institutional
leadership for faculty development. They posited that if the institutional environment does not
succeed in building commitment and prioritizing faculty development, it will be difficult to
engage faculty—the more so, since higher education traditionally provides for faculty autonomy
and forms of collaboration that attempt to combine individualistic and community norms have
not been promoted or explored to great extent. The researchers claimed that a fundamental rift
between individual and collaborative work exists and while it is commonly accepted that
collaboration is necessary, collaboration approaches that will satisfy individual and group goals
are lacking. In fact, Bensimon and O’Neil’s investigation of faculty collaboration issues still
appears timely today because more than a decade later the mindset of faculty and their
institutions has not changed much. Ironically, the rapid technological advancement and the need
to address the internationalization of the institution in the last decade added to the complexities
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

19

of faculty development, created increased competition among individuals to be first adopters of
new technologies, and might have diminished the importance of collaborative work.
Researchers Diaz, Garrett, Kinley, Moore, Schwartz, and Kohrman (2009) reviewed
faculty development programs and initiatives across five very different institutions (from a large
multi-campus university to a small private college). They found that the menu of offerings for
faculty development is showing great variety of customized approaches from face-to-face to
online and just-in-time choices, etc. However, the myriad of offerings might contribute to
isolation of faculty, and the authors claimed that more needs to be done to adopt faculty
development in the same way institutions revise curricula to suit the Millennial, or Gen-Y,
students. White and Glickman (2007) supported this claim arguing that in light of the maturity
of our higher education enterprise, innovation in faculty development continues to pose a
challenge. In addition, the budgetary restrictions in our current economic climate make it seem
unlikely that faculty development will receive priority funding and teaching loads or research
obligations will not lessen; hence, faculty continues to struggle to satisfy the demands of their
stakeholders and their own development needs (Diaz et al., 2009).
In summary, the issues above confirmed that faculty development is problematic and has
become increasingly complex in today’s higher education environment. They are indicative of a
variety of barriers to professional development that make it difficult for faculty to engage in it.
Barriers to Faculty Development
The complexities, demands, and challenges that current issues pose to faculty development
easily veil underlying problems in the university context, which, however, must be brought
forward. Hence, this section will address faculty workload issues and institutional culture, which
emerge as primary impacts on faculty motivation. These are systemic and, if imbalanced,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

20

counterproductive to the triadic reciprocity of environment, person, and behavior that Bandura
(1978) established within the framework of social cognitive theory as a fundamental condition
for a healthy work environment. Davis (2003) further confirmed that workload and culture both
strongly influence how faculty feels about their job. The researcher also confirmed that faculty
is too busy teaching and grading and is not motivated to spend extra time to develop or nurture
additional interests, or does not recognize a personal career advantage. However, since faculty
needs to be self-motivated to engage in any form of development, which also includes
advocating for institutional change, contributing barriers that impact motivation such as a lack of
self-efficacy in teaching, affects of attribution (e.g., feeling undervalued) and unclear
performance goals deserve a closer examination in this context.
Workload Issues
Faculty’s perceived lack of a supportive structure for development often stems from
workload and work-life balance issues, as well as the departmental and/or school climate,
including concern about collegiality and competition; in other words, while professional
development resources might be available, circumstances can limit access and use (Ambrose,
Huston, & Norman, 2005; Burke & Rau, 2005; Gappa, 2008; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Sorcinelli,
2007). An overarching prohibitive issue when it comes to faculty time available for
development is workload. Jacobs and Winslow (2004), for example, analyzed statistics for male
and female full-time faculty workload as reported by National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education: The average work-week for full-time faculty on
average exceeds 50 hours, and, for all ages and ranks combined, 45.5% of females and 34.3% of
males reported to be dissatisfied with this condition (n=10,116).
According to Freund, Ulin and Pierce (1990), the difficulty of striking a balance between
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

21

workload standards adds to the concerns of time limitations and reluctance for engagement in
development. The researchers identified four basic principles for workload standards: (a) time
devoted to teaching and teaching-related activities, (b) scholarly activity and service, (c) equity
among faculty in workload assignments, and (d) an adjustable standard for faculty effort
depending on individual and school needs. Conflicts arise between faculty objectives and desires
and institutional goals, such as the percentage of a faculty’s research versus service and teaching
obligations. Assessing and comparing faculty performance in these contexts is a widely ongoing
debate in higher education (Bensimon & O’Neil, 1998; Sorcinelli, 2007). Ambrose et al. (2005)
looked deeper into these contextual issues. They categorized faculty into groups based on
faculty reports on how they felt about internal and external benefits at their institutions. For the
purpose here, their findings about internal issues like faculty’s feelings of departmental and
school community, or degree of peer support and development opportunities is noteworthy.
Thirty-nine percent of the surveyed faculty (n=62) did not feel supported by their peers or school
leadership. Not only was this rather large number alarming, but the authors further confirmed
that feeling a lack of support often lead to disengagement, spreading a negative atmosphere
among colleagues, and, ultimately impacted faculty retention. Another finding of this study
suggested that research about faculty issues in order to improve opportunities for and retention of
faculty should be institution-specific due to the great differentiations among institutions of both
external and internal factors.
Institutional Culture
While Ambrose’s et al.’s (2005) sample might be small, many researchers echo their
findings and concerns (Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Sharma and
Jyoti, 2009; Sorcinelli, 2007). Their studies highlighted the importance of a healthy
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

22

organizational culture as a prerequisite for successful faculty performance. Of course, culture
can be characterized in various different ways. Russian scholar and psychologist Lev. S.
Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theories have been recognized and explored widely since the 1980s
(Gredler, 2009). One of the leading principles of Vygotsky’s extensive work throughout the 20
th

century was that cultural signs and symbols define the way we think, learn and act, and
individuals interpret the sign and symbols of their environment and adapt to it (Gredler, 2009).
This overarching concept of culture defined as shared history, values, goals, beliefs,
emotions, and (work) processes of a specific group of people has not only entered the education
discourse but is also influencing the debate of organizational behavior (Schein, 2004; Clark &
Estes, 2008). Organizations, departments and even groups can have their own cultures, a reason
why institutions invest great effort and resources in attempting to build a shared or unifying
culture for their members. In other words, if the work environment carries negative signals
about expectations from faculty—for example, that their workload does not give them time for
scholarly activities, and limits faculty aspects of their development—performance is impacted.
Coincidentally, even though this is a negative culture, it will be difficult to change because the
status quo provides a degree of stability and predictability (Schein, 2004). One cause that
hinders achieving the performance goal to motivate faculty is when they experience that
workload and service assignments are overbearing and hard to manage and service lacks clear
definitions and allocations. While some faculty appear to be engaged in extensive service tasks,
others are not. The workload does not allow time to pursue other academic interests such as
research. Plus, the perception that research is superfluous for the group of non-tenure track
faculty impacts their sense of futility (Kezar, 2005). A second cause is when faculty experiences
a sense of disorder, or senselessness in excessive service tasks that they label “busy work” and
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

23

feel they could spend their time more productively. Perceived senselessness and disorder are
known contributors to feelings of anxiety (Schein, 2004). In the extreme, this can cause apathy
and disengagement, and can promote further isolation, or as Burke and Rau (2007) proposed,
lead to faculty’s excuse-making behaviors. The authors applied Schenkler’s (1997)
responsibility triangle, which suggests that a strong reciprocity between prescription (job/task
objective), identity (faculty’s role, character, aspirations), and event (task performance) is
necessary to increase responsibility to perform well, and with it accountability to do so. Burke
and Rau (2007) made a convincing point that faculty’s responsibility is weakened when the links
between these three components are interrupted. For example, unclear or conflicting
performance goals, workload expectations that are too high, lack of acknowledgment or reward
can result in faculty sentiments of resignation. In turn, such sentiments not only impact
performance, but also will hinder potential faculty participation in professional development.
In addition, as posited in Chapter One, the nature of teaching, learning and scholarship is
changing, and institutions should integrate teaching and research, which signifies a change in
culture. In fact, Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, and Beach (2006) reported in their study of goals and
purposes for faculty development that faculty program developers agreed that the definition of
scholarship must be expanded to include scholarship of teaching as an important component of
faculty development to facilitate learning in a 21
st
century technology driven age. Their study
further confirmed that the mature institution runs opposite to what faculty needs: Time to reflect
and innovate and a reduction in workload, a culture that supports their willingness to take risks,
budgets that allow for experiment and research and faculty development programs. In summary,
the researchers confirmed that many constraints have been recognized—most importantly, a need
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

24

for learning about pedagogy and engaging actively in reflection (Bensimon, 2005; Davis, 2003;
Gappa, 2008; Jacobs & Winslow, 2004; Freund, Ulin, & Pierce, 1990).
Impact on Faculty Motivation
The exploration of institutional barriers to faculty development is not complete without
looking at issues of faculty motivation. Motivation is understood as the drive to take action
(active choice), persist in its execution (persistence) and the willingness to learn new things
(mental effort) (Mayer, 2011). These positive emotions and the satisfaction of performing a task
increase intrinsic motivation (Pintrich, 2000; Pintrich & Linnenbring, 2003). Self-efficacy,
attribution, performance goals and also interest are considered the primary drivers of motivation,
and even though the scope of this literature review does not allow for a full-fledged exploration
of faculty’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivational issues, it will highlight these main contributors to
a lack of faculty motivation: issues of self-efficacy, attribution and lack of clear performance
goals as they relate to workload and culture (Ambrose et al., 2005; Bandura, 1978; Clark & Estes,
2008; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009; Kaya, Webb, & Weber,
2005; Weiner, 2010).
The discussion of self-efficacy in the realm of education was first primarily focused on
student achievement as it related to their performance capabilities in a specific domain and
relation to socio-cultural contexts (Zimmerman, 2000). However, this social-cognitive theory
that goes back to Bandura (1978) has long been applied in a wider context, but particularly as
one determinant of academic motivation in learners of all ages. A lack of self-efficacy in
teaching is indicative of decreased interest, engagement, and resignation in the workplace, which
all can demotivate faculty to seek support. Klassen and Chiu (2010), for example, performed a
longitudinal study of more than a thousand teachers that can be generalized to university faculty
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

25

who operate in a closely related field and experience similar challenges. The authors built on
Bandura’s social-cognitive theory that defined self-efficacy as an individual’s beliefs about their
capability to successfully perform a particular course of action. In contrast to Bandura, however,
who described self-efficacy as a global state that remains relatively stable throughout a career,
the authors determined that self-efficacy beliefs are domain specific and are not static, but
change over time. They emphasized the following as major determinants for teachers’ self-
efficacy: teachers’ beliefs about their capabilities, influence of past and present experience, age-
related physical and psychological factors, and external influences such as workplace
environments (i.e., feedback, support, and modeling through peers, principals, students, parents).
Further, Klassen and Chiu (2010) pointed to the importance of considering multilevel stress
factors that are detrimental to self-efficacy—especially, two overlapping sources whose multiple
factors contribute separately to the overall stress level: teacher stress (negative emotions
resulting from low self-efficacy, poor student rapport, low levels of effectiveness, etc.) and
workload stress (role ambiguity, low autonomy, overall workload, conflicts with peers, etc.).
This is in accordance with Jacobs and Winslow’s (2004) findings, which pointed to the added
stress of family demands on faculty. Because stress levels and job demands vary throughout the
career span, the authors claimed that professional development should be tailored to individual
needs—this should not only boost skills, but more so lower job stress, enhance job satisfaction
and, last but not least, build and support a continued high level of self-efficacy.
Next, it is necessary to point to attribution issues in relation to influences of culture and
workload on motivation. Attribution in this context refers to faculty’s locus of internal and
external control. If faculty feels they lack ability (an internal, stable, uncontrollable cause), and
departmental/school support (an external, stable, uncontrollable cause), they will not exert effort
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

26

because the environment does not value effort (Weiner, 2010). The importance of Weiner’s
(2010) elaborations on attribution theory is that these affects are not anticipated but experienced
and translate into an individual’s thinking, and this thinking results in feelings that guide action.
In other words, a faculty’s feeling of not being valued does not need to have a direct causality,
but is cumulative, and can lead to disengagement and negative moods that trigger feelings of
anxiety, perceived loss of control, unnecessary competition, backstabbing, depression, and so on.
These negatively impact motivation and can lead to faculty doubts about their career and
performance goals and feelings of resignation; consequently, it might appear as if faculty does
not value professional engagement (Ambrose et al., 2005; Clark & Estes, 2009).
However, clarity of goals is essential to professional development. Kaya, Webb, and
Weber (2005) investigated the issue of what influences faculty goals in greater detail. Their
survey of faculty (n=156; about evenly split between males and females) confirmed the
importance of goal setting for faculty. For example, they showed that if a higher emphasis was
placed on a faculty’s teaching roles, the number of goals for teaching also increased (and vice
versa for scholarly goals). Most prominently, however, Kaya, Webb, and Weber’s study
confirmed that goals differ by the nature of the discipline (i.e., natural science’s faculty might
have more research goals than social science faculty, whose goals are more teaching related). In
addition, the researchers not only found evidence that the alignment of institutional,
departmental, and individual goals matters significantly, but more so that the relationship
between individual and departmental goals is most important. They stipulated that the proximity
of those two, aided by guidance through the department chair, and determining short-term
achievement goals for faculty is crucial for faculty engagement and performance. However, in
practice, this goal setting might be limited to institutional and departmental achievement goals
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

27

rather than supporting the individual in the pursuit of these goals. While tenure-track or tenured
faculty is charged with producing top-tier research, teaching faculty must produce effective
learning experiences for students (measured through teaching evaluations) and accept multiple
service requests. In other words, the institutional goals are often misaligned with faculty goals
and the goal-setting conversation is limited to the summative annual performance review
meeting with department leadership (Gappa, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005). Accordingly, the
researchers suggested that to establish solutions to achieve higher motivation, cognitive
explanations of change have to be blended with performance-based interventions strategies.
Clearly, this emphasizes the importance of a departmental culture that is supportive of faculty
development and realizes individual needs on a continued basis.
Lastly, Hirst, van Knippenberg and Zhou (2009) looked deeper into the correlation of
performance goal orientation and creativity studying employees (N=198) in research and
development departments in various organizations and their findings supported the above points.
Similar to faculty, these employees need to generate ideas and engage in creative problem
solving. Performance goal orientation is mostly motivated by external outcomes; in the case of
faculty, for example, this can be the immediate feeling of success or failure in the classroom.
The researchers hypothesized that this external outcome will be attributed to increased/decreased
achievement, which then translates either into heightened intrinsic motivation, or, on the
negative side, performance avoidance (Hirst et al., 2009). Building on Amabile’s (1996)
research on creativity, the researchers then confirmed that a heightened intrinsic motivation is
interest driven and supports a learning goal orientation, which, in turn, is conducive to increased
creativity and the readiness to take on challenging tasks. Their study, however, also proposed
that this relation between goal orientation and resulting creativity was strongest in effective team
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

28

learning contexts (Hirst et al., 2009). This finding ties back to the importance of a supportive
culture and the necessity of thought exchange among faculty to support their motivation and
performance.
In summary, people’s perceptions of their environment and their professional family are
the foundation for motivation, performance, and retention—and the basis for providing a
stimulating and caring learning experience for students. However, the barriers to faculty
development outlined here are impacting faculty engagement and cannot be remedied ad hoc or
with drastic imposed measures. To begin the discussion of a shift in culture, a revision of
workload and how to increase motivation, faculty needs to realize that they, too, can change as
well as affect change. In the following section, the literature review examines research that
explored as well as proposed processes that should facilitate faculty development and their
willingness to learn; it argues for faculty empowerment and institutional support. For example,
the web-based development platform is intended to overcome the above barriers by providing
access to information about pedagogy, building a community and creating awareness for
development issues. It provides access to information about and discussion opportunities for
issues like reflection, multiple means of instruction, cognitive frames, and leadership identified
in the following as faculty expansion needs.
Faculty Development Expansion Needs
The barriers for faculty development that were identified in the previous section need to
be diminished if not eliminated to foster faculty development. The need for reflection, an
understanding and internalizing of double-loop learning as well as learning about pedagogy has
to be embraced by faculty and supported by institutional leadership. The following research
confirmed this theory and established why satisfying these topics is a prerequisite for faculty’s
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

29

development, and, accordingly, their learning about creativity, innovation, universal design and
technology. Accordingly, reflection, arguably the most encompassing and fundamental need for
faculty development, will be discussed first, followed by double-loop learning, leadership and
learning about pedagogy.
Reflection
Schön (1987) was the first researcher to establish the necessity for reflection as an
important function of the learning process because it reinforces and deepens experiences and
knowledge, both for the faculty and the student. This necessity to reflect has been widely
acknowledged, as have the barriers to do so (Bolman & Deal, 2009; Davis, 2003). For example,
a heavy workload not only inhibits faculty’s ability to participate in professional development,
but also it hardly leaves time for reflection. Schön (1987) postulated that while faculty can
provide opportunity and their own knowledge for the learner, learning itself is a process of self-
discovery in the learner. He claimed that the art of the teacher is to re-frame their own
knowledge through listening and reflecting, in repeated dialog, in order to open pathways for the
learner to learn. Honing this art can only happen if faculty reflects upon themselves as well as
their learners (Davis, 2003). In addition to the time constraints, however, reflection about
learners has become more complex due to the ever-growing diversity of the 21
st
century student
population, which means that faculty not only teaches learners from many cultures, with
different abilities and disabilities, ages, maturity levels, and so on, but faculty also should reflect
on those individual learner traits. However, reflection on these many variables can be
overwhelming, especially since the faculty might not have sufficient knowledge about a students’
ethnic, cultural, or knowledge background (Smyre, 2008). As a result, faculty avoids reflective
practice, engaging in excuse-making behavior, and reverts to choosing a pedagogical teaching
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

30

method that is appropriate for the content they aim to communicate to the learner, but largely
remains ignorant of the learners’ learning needs (Burke & Rau, 2007; Davis, 2003). Not only
does this defy Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) theories of determining learners’ zone of proximal
development and to scaffold learning content accordingly, it also clearly is not responding to
what organizational theories promote, which is tailoring your message to your target audience
(Bolman & Deal, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Accordingly, faculty tends to teach the way they were
taught and have always taught and may not attribute sufficient importance to reflection (Camblin
& Steger, 2000; Davis, 2003). In fact, the demands of their learner population exposes faculty to
unguided and involuntary discovery-based learning about their students, which can diminish
their effectiveness in the classroom setting, or their reflection-in-action, because this requires a
tremendous amount of mental effort that is not task oriented (Clark et al., 2008; Schön, 1987).
Naturally, this increases the cognitive load not only for the faculty but also for the learner who
has to exert effort to figure out the modus operandi of the teacher (Mayer, 2011).
Bolman and Deal (2008) pointed to yet a more fundamental need for and effect of
reflection, which, much like meditation, is a path to identify and reflect upon ones own faith and
values; in other words, reflection aids not only to learn about oneself and others but also to build
inner strength. Undoubtedly, this foothold serves the individual to acknowledge difficulties but
at the same time instills confidence that solutions are possible—ultimately, fostering their
intrinsic motivation to grow professionally, while enabling generative and creative thinking, the
ability to recognize multi-frame thinking as well as double-loop learning (Bensimon, 2005;
Smith, 2011).
In summary, the awareness of the necessity of reflection, the ability to engage in reflective
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

31

practice, and guidance on developing a method to do so are fundamental prerequisites for
effective teaching and need to be nurtured in faculty.
Double-Loop Learning
Double-loop learning was first proposed and explored by Argyris (1976) in the context of
decision-making behavior in organizational contexts. Since then, the distinction between single
and double-loop learning has found applications in many fields including in higher education.
Basically, single-loop learning is one-directional, aiming to rely on known or external
corrections to problems. Double-loop learning examines root causes of a problem and considers
modifications of underlying attitudes, values, norms, beliefs and practices (Argyris, 1976;
Bensimon, 2005; Smith, 2011). Bensimon (2005) applied the concept of double-loop learning to
trigger shifts in faculty’s cognitive frames—individual perception lenses, or conceptual mind-
maps that filter and categorize information and thus determine action. The researcher was
particularly arguing for faculty’s need to develop what she called an “equity frame of mind” (p.
101), meaning faculty pursue a substantive revision of perceptions and attitudes to better serve a
diverse student population. Understanding the importance of cognitive frames and double-loop
learning is essential for faculty’s understanding of their way of thinking and realizing that
problems underlying effective teaching are multilayered and not one-dimensional. While this is
a process of inner reflection, both single- and double-loop learning can be supported by external
means such as faculty development and should foster, among others, faculty empowerment and
leadership as part of substantive transformational change efforts (Moore, Fowler, & Watson,
2007).
Leadership
Building upon the foundations above, the next step is developing transformational teacher
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

32

leadership. Transformation means a structural shift in thought, feelings, and actions. Learning is
a process of making meaning. In today’s landscape of higher education, the changing
professoriate should include the scholarship of teaching, and faculty needs research-based
understanding of pedagogy and learning theories to develop effective classroom practices
(Sorcinelli, 2008). Faculty who is continuously engaged in this process will be better equipped
to be a change agent and serve the needs of the 21
st
century student population (Pounder, 2006).
In order to become transformational leaders, faculty will further benefit from being
guided to review their perspectives in relation to Bolman and Deal’s (2010) four frames of
leadership: (1) structural-managerial, (2) political, (3) human resources, and (4) symbolic. For
the teacher-student relationship and the classroom environment, Achinstein and Barrett (2004)
apply the first three frames in particular as follows (Table 2.1):
Table 2.1
Applied Frames Reflecting Teacher Perspectives of Students and Classroom
Perspectives Frames
Managerial Human Relations Political
General concepts Rules
Control
Procedures
Relationship needs Power
Equity
Conflict
Social Justice
Metaphor of
classroom
Effective
organization
Caring family,
interactive
Democratic
community
Metaphor for
teacher-student
relationship
Manager-learner
(manager-worker)
Trusted collaborator-
unique individual
Change agent
and controller;
collaborator
Note. Adapted from Achinstein & Barrett (2004)

Professional development should introduce faculty to these concepts and aim to enable
faculty to reflect on these frames, realize they are collaborators and change agents who operate in
a classroom that is a democratic community. Ultimately, they will relate these roles and
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

33

concepts to their own cognitive frames, integrating the concept of double-loop learning and
experiencing a cognitive shift in their underlying norms, beliefs, principles and approaches
(Moore et al., 2007). The researchers emphasized that this reframing process, ideally, will be
supported by in-person or computer-based workshops, and through mentoring to make meaning
of it. Further, this process of reframing will move faculty through the stages of Bloom’s
Taxonomy (as cited in Andersen & Krathwohl, 2001), ultimately enabling them to reach
metacognition where they will create, try out and potentially adopt new perspectives that will
transpire into creative and innovative curriculum redesign and teaching methods.
In summary, if faculty experiences cognitive shifts they will more readily realize new
possibilities and become more versatile in their approaches, and, in fact, change their habitus
(Bourdieu, 1973). Accordingly, they become enabled not only to promote a change in
disposition among their colleagues, but also to think creatively about teaching approaches
(Pounder, 2006).
Pedagogy
Thinking (creatively) about teaching approaches, and encouraging colleagues to reflect
on theirs, is not easy if faculty relies on what they consider best practices but cannot back those
up with knowledge of pedagogical theories. In fact, Sorcinelli et al. (2006) pointed out that the
scholarship of teaching should take on an equal role to that of research in today’s faculty
development. White and Glickman (2007) confirmed this insight, positing that the rapid
developments in technology and interconnectivity have opened up new ways of teaching and,
indeed, bring a degree of urgency to the issue. With this urgency comes an opportunity to
explore learning theories and pedagogy and to interpret how they can be applied in today’s
teaching environments. Postareff et al. (2006) claimed that faculty today understand that
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

34

professional development cannot be limited to expanding their domain knowledge, but that they
have to find new ways of communicating and transferring their knowledge to the students. This
is in line, as the researchers observed, with a growing debate about the necessity of enhancing
faculty’s pedagogical thinking and know-how. In fact, they were able to show positive effects of
pedagogy training for faculty that was aimed in particular to motivate faculty to segue from a
teacher-centered to a learner-centered teaching approach. Their study sample consisted of 204
faculty with varying degrees of both prior knowledge in pedagogy and years of teaching
experience. These faculty were invited to pedagogy courses they could choose based on interest;
for example, short courses on learning and instruction as basic teacher-training courses aimed to
give faculty the basic skills to plan, instruct and assess teaching and learning in their courses.
The quantitative part of their study showed, among other results, that the longer faculty had
pedagogy training, the more their student-centered approach grew. Further, in post-study
interviews, more than fifty percent of the faculty reported having gained higher awareness of
their teaching approaches and methods as well as witnessed an improvement of their reflective
skills.
In summary, learning about pedagogy and the necessity for reflection, including double-
loop thinking and concepts of transformational leadership, are necessary components for
faculty’s professional growth and deserve greater recognition. Arguably, supporting faculty in
these areas should lead to increased creativity. Online faculty development can offer pathways
to engage in learning about these issues, when browsing content tailored to those topics and
sharing questions, thoughts, ideas and examples of their experiences. In fact, as Hiser (2008)
confirmed in her review of different approaches to online faculty development, the quasi-
anonymity breaks down barriers of disengagement making it easier to be honest and asking
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

35

questions; writing a blog post, for example, provides a great tool for reflection while it is a form
of thinking out loud. In addition, faculty can receive comments from colleagues of other
domains or from more senior colleagues. This should contribute to expanding their cognitive
frames and seeing problems through different lenses while offering the domain or topic expert
opportunity for leadership. Most of all, it will avert the excuse of being too busy. Diaz, Garrett,
Kinley, Moor, Schwartz, and Kohrman (2009) confirmed these advantages and suggested
reinforcement through periodic surveys and assessments to ensure the sites are catering to faculty
needs, are proactive in anticipating developments in education, and are aligned with institutional
strategic goals.
Creativity and Creative Thinking
The need for creativity and creative thinking (CT) in this context is an overarching theme.
Referring back to the problem that in order to guide students to develop their creative thinking
skills and nurture their creativity, faculty must first deepen their understanding of creative
thinking and creativity in order to develop novel approaches to teaching and to interact with
ambiguities in their environments (Wisdom, 2006). The following will illustrate the current state
of the creativity discussion, reveal what attempts to infuse curricula with creativity have been
attempted and studied by selected faculty researchers, and support that the discussion of
creativity as an element of faculty development needs to broaden. Consequently, it is important
to first explain characteristics of the creative person, process and product in relation to the higher
education environment, and why constructivist teaching approaches adapt well to nurture
creativity. It will be demonstrated that creative project-based and problem-solving strategies
foster generative thought in both faculty and students and that, while not exclusive, applying
those teaching strategies requires faculty to change the perceptions of themselves from teacher to
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

36

facilitator. Three practice examples by Bruton (2010), Karakas (2010) and Kerr & Lloyd (2008),
respectively, will further elaborate and expand on those findings, particularly emphasizing the
need for creative thinking and creativity in business schools.
Defining Creative Person, Process, and Product
Among many variables of creativity, researchers generally agree upon the characteristics
of a creative person as being imaginative, having the ability to combine ideas, being ambiguity
tolerant, showing a willingness to take risks, to explore and create, being open, conscientious,
and self-efficacious, to name a few (Bruton, 2010; Csikszentmilhalyi, 2006; Jackson & Sinclair,
2006; Kerr & Lloyd, 2008; Nicholl, 2004; Ma, 2009; Plucker, Beghetto, & Dow, 2010). In other
words, and in De Bono’s (1991) tradition of thought, creative persons are capable of lateral
thinking; that is, they recognize dominant ideas, search for multiple perspectives, and relax rigid
thinking to achieve creativity or creative problem solving (Boden, 2011; Powell, 2007;
Sobehardt, 2011). These character tendencies can be cultivated and brought out in the individual
who can gradually increase creativity if the environment encourages it and if certain conditions
are met; for example, through the interplay of learner and teacher in effective higher education
settings (Nicholl, 2004). Ma (2009), in a meta-analysis of 111 studies, among other findings
extrapolated that the creative process involves divergent and convergent thinking, inter-domain
creativity, and encompasses five stages: (a) defining the problem, (b) retrieving problem-related
knowledge, (c) generating potential solutions, (d) generating criteria for evaluating appropriate
solutions, and (e) selecting solutions and implementing it. The creative product, measured
primarily in terms of fluency and flexibility, combined creative originality of the solution with
practicality of application. Ma’s (2009) meta-analysis substantiated the applicability of project-
based teaching approaches for the college level learner.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

37

Creativity and Constructivism
Despite the attempts to define CT, the studies in this review also showed consensus that
the mechanisms of CT are still not known well enough and are therefore difficult to teach
(Bruton, 2010; Kerr & Lloyd, 2008; Morrison & Johnson, 2003; Nicholl, 2004). Moving away
from linear and lecture type teaching, project-based, problem-based, and case-based learning
appeared to be the most applicable approaches to teach CT. These approaches are all rooted in
constructivism, which defines learning as a process of knowledge construction. In other words,
using one’s current knowledge, new knowledge is constructed by making assumptions about the
world and by collaborating with others. This necessitates learners’ meta-cognition and with it
their ability for self-regulation, which relies on forethought, performance and self-reflection
(Dochy, Segers, Bossche, & Struyven, 2005; Jackson & Sinclair, 2006). Studies included in this
review combined the above-mentioned teaching approaches to some extent, emphasizing one or
the other while utilizing similar instructional methods. However, while each study applied a
different experiential framework, such as grammatical design, arts-based intervention, or
management concepts, Csikszentmilhalyi and Nakamura’s (2006) systems approach of teaching
strategy to include the student, the teacher, the environment and the field of study clearly is a
main influence for all (Bruton, 2010; Jackson & Sinclair, 2010; Kerr & Lloyd, 2008; Morrison &
Johnson, 2003; Nicholl, 2004).
Creative Project-Based and Problem-Solving Strategies
Creative project-based and problem-solving teaching and learning strategies can be seen
as vehicles to support a pathway to generative and creative thinking in students by involving
various teaching approaches in which faculty will serve not as a lecturer but as a facilitator.
Jackson and Sinclair (2006) most poignantly labeled this relationship a cognitive apprenticeship.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

38

This concept ties together project-based pedagogy and self-regulated learning adding the element
of coaching with a focus on cognition. This means that in a cognitive apprenticeship the process
of carrying out a task is not necessarily observable (as in a craft-based task) and teacher and
students have to make their thoughts known; for example, through conversations. Nurturing this
thought exchange, and understanding the classroom as a learning community, requires faculty to
build caring relationships between themselves and the students (Morrison & Johnston, 2003). In
this interdependency, the faculty-facilitators must be creative themselves and use innovative
thinking to provide stimulating learning environments that are challenging contexts, which
engage and motivate students to grow beyond their assumed knowledge—ideally, reaching a
state of illumination or flow (Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989).
Achieving this type of creative state further relies on the application of learners’
metacognitive strategies and is mostly driven by teamwork, the use of multimedia, creative
problem-solving strategies, interdisciplinary practice, experiential learning and also, albeit
sparingly, rewards for productive thinking (Bruton, 2010; Dochy et al., 2005; Karakas, 2010;
Kerr & Lloyd, 2008; Morrison & Johnson, 2003). For faculty at business schools, which aim to
prepare students for a competitive global marketplace that demands a more creative workforce,
employing creative instructional approaches to foster creativity in students is particularly
pressing (Kerr & Lloyd, 2008).
In summary, having established what is understood by creativity and creative thinking in
this context—that a connection between creativity and constructivism drives learning and
teaching approaches rooted in project-based learning and problem-solving strategies—the
following three studies researched application attempts of such approaches that further supported
the hypothesis of the need for creativity in higher education.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

39

Three application attempts of infusing the curriculum with creativity. The studies
by Bruton (2010), Karakas (2010), and Kerr and Lloyd (2008) were selected and deserve
mention because they modeled creative approaches using different instructional methods in a
sub-context to project-based learning. In these isolated attempts to teach creativity creatively,
students operated within schemas that enabled autonomous and self-regulated learning, letting
students expand their domain-specific vocabularies and create new knowledge.
Bruton (2010), in an undergraduate course about creativity and innovation, drew on the
concept of grammatical design. Adopted from linguistic theory, grammatical design provides a
generative system involving three elements: a vocabulary, a set of transformation rules for
structures and an initial structure. In principle, the initial structure or domain will continuously
be transformed by adding new structures from different domains. While student participants
from various disciplines relied on their domain-specific knowledge, collaboration, multimedia
use, and reflective writing pushed them to transcend their discipline driven framework and apply
new rules that their team peers contributed from their disciplines. The grammatical design, or
schema, provided scaffolding in which students operated autonomously.
In a similar approach, Kerr and Lloyd (2008) studied how an arts-based strategy can be
applied to problem-solving for management students. The Artful Learning Wave Trajectory
Model (ALWTM), which revolves through four distinct stages of the learning process (capacity,
artful event, increased capability, and application/action) was linked with the so-called
Management Jazz program that focuses on doing, learning and knowing by utilizing highly
flexible scaffolds. For example, business students observed creative production outside their
domain, witnessing how a dance troupe constructed a performance through shared ownership
and reciprocal interaction between dancers and the choreographer. The business students
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

40

discussed their experience and related it to their known management theories, and then solved a
management problem infused with novel approaches they derived from their experience.
Finally, Karakas (2010) used creative projects in an organizational behavior course to
develop students’ integrative thinking and creative brainstorming skills. The author paired
Positive Management Education (PME), a multi-dimensional framework addressing flexibility,
positivity, complexity, community, creativity, spirituality in business with Positive
Organizational Scholarship (POS), a conceptual framework guiding students to build flourishing,
life-giving organizations. The researcher (also the instructor) integrated these frameworks into
faculty-guided learning platforms, or task environments, such as outdoor team training exercises
or role-play, through which students developed innovative methods to transform professionals
into holistic thinkers, criteria for which students had established in collaboration (Karakas, 2010).
In all three cases above, researchers provided solid evidence for increased student
creativity, applying various different instructional frameworks and methods within the
overarching concept of project-based learning. In detail, Bruton (2010) used the commonly
applied Torrance Tests for Creativity in pre- and posttests and confirmed that students’ creativity
index increased significantly. Kerr & Lloyd (2008) measured the effectiveness of their approach
collecting qualitative and quantitative data for three case studies. Results showed positive
correlations between the program and individuals’ capacity for self-creativity, increased capacity
to create environments for group creativity and interactions, a higher ability to accept and deal
with ambiguity and an urge to engage in exploration and discovery—all traits of creative
individuals. Karakas (2010) recorded her observations throughout the semester and applied a
multi-dimensional performance evaluation for each project, reporting a 15 to 35% increase in
student performance and creativity throughout the course.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

41

In summary, creative project-based learning with its many forms of pedagogical
expressions can be considered effective strategy to nurture CT in students and contribute to
preparing them for a future of global challenges. In addition, the variety of experimental
pedagogical approaches in these case studies supported that further experimentation and research
of alternative methods and strategies to foster individuals’ divergent thinking and cross-domain
creativity are warranted. This leads to the conclusion that the demand on faculty to facilitate
learning that fosters integrative holistic creative thinking for their students is challenging
faculty’s own creative abilities. The three sample studies notably were isolated approaches and,
regardless of their success, highlighted that despite the current discussions about creativity and
its importance in educating the next generation, little is done to support faculty in that regard.
Further, the studies also exemplified that faculty development must define creativity in the
educational context, explore approaches to creative teaching approaches, and should model
creativity in the process.
Bringing all the barriers and challenges for faculty together, and pairing them with
faculty professional development aspects in the 21
st
century, the discussion will now investigate
how universal design (UD) and technology can be utilized to motivate and engage faculty in
professional development and hypothesizing that, indeed, both will not only support their growth,
but also nurture their creativity.
Utilizing Universal Design and Technology for Faculty Development
In order to discuss the influences of universal design (UD) and technology in higher
education and their uses for faculty development, it is first necessary to explore the nature and
application of universal design in higher education, as well as evaluate the role of technology. In
this context, it will also be valuable to consider aspects of self-directed learning and cognitive
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

42

load because UD and technology, if used effectively, should be promote cognitive load levels
that are conducive to higher learning outcomes in all domains (Van Merriënboer, Kirschner, &
Kester, 2005). Shaping faculty development based on UD principles and with technology should
further break down motivational barriers, while allowing faculty to apply and try learning
methods they might translate into their teaching. Accordingly, the following section will address
principles of UD and faculty learning, explore pairing of UD and technology, discuss faculty
perceptions of technology and the application of UD principles and technology to establish
faculty learning environments and, finally, investigate structural design and approaches of
content sourcing for the web-based development platform.
Principles of Universal Design and Faculty Learning
To begin the exploration of UD, it will be useful to briefly elaborate on its origin and
current forms and applications. Universal design was first a concept in architecture to ensure
buildings were accessible to all populations, including those with disabilities (e.g., buildings will
have ramps for wheelchairs, sidewalks with curb cuts). The benefits of UD were so obvious that
it did not take long before its concepts entered the education discourse among those seeking to
establish inclusive learning environments. In fact, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) in 1990 was the first nation-wide impetus in higher education institutions to make
their campuses physically accessible (Higbee, 2009). About a decade later, the U.S. Department
of Education was instrumental in formulating a recommendation that all instruction should be
designed based on the UD principles (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). The rapid development
and refinement of technology since then further assisted accessibility through Internet platforms
and other technological devices (like hearing aids, for example); arguably, attempting to offer
increasingly flexible learning environments that are suited for diverse student populations
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

43

(Gradel & Edson, 2010; McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). Burgstahler’s (2001) seven UDI
principles (inclusiveness, physical access, delivery methods, information access, interaction,
feedback, demonstration of knowledge) have become a widely accepted guideline to make
course content available for all learners and learning styles, but particularly those with
disabilities. McGuire et al. (2001) in collaboration with the Center for Postsecondary Education
and Disabilities (CPED) at the University of Connecticut argued that faculty are the content
experts but generally receive little if no training in pedagogy. Hence, they added two more
principles to Burgstahler’s (2001) original seven:
• Principle Eight: A community of learners (instructional environment promotes
interaction and communication among students and between students and faculty).
• Principle Nine: Instructional climate (instruction is designed to be welcoming and
inclusive. High expectations are espoused for all students).
While all nine principles are geared to provide a framework for content delivery and
learning outcome assessment, principles eight and nine, in particular, should sensitize faculty to
reflect on their teaching methods and to develop instructional features to proactively include all
learners (McGuire et al., 2006).
Further, McGuire et al. (2006) extrapolated how these principles, originally designed to
serve students with disabilities, translate into a universal paradigm, truly taking into account the
learning needs of the broad range of students present at most institutions of higher education
today (meaning including non-native speakers, international students, etc.). Their new UD
paradigm semantically eliminated the term disability from all principles and guidelines and
replaced it with broad or wide range of learners. The researchers’ efforts echoed a growing
popularity of UD throughout higher education to support not only equitable access for but also
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

44

equity among learners. Bremer (2004), for example, provided a list of examples of faculty’s
application of UD, ranging from allowing students to audio-record lectures for later review, to
ensuring that course materials are posted on course management systems, or adding closed
captioning to videos. Other researchers adapted the UD principles into a list of instructional
strategies that should jump-start faculty new to UD concepts, such as designing course objectives
that consider diverse learning styles, feature internet-based lessons, or promote interaction
among students (Burgstahler, 2001; De Long, 2008; Gradel & Edson, 2010; Zeff, 2007).
Looking at these suggested applications, Higbee (2009) then asked how teaching under
consideration of UD principles would be different from simply “good” teaching. Her argument
brings home the discussion of what needs to happen in faculty thinking about their approach to
teaching. Higbee (2009) agreed with McGuire et al. (2006) and Zeff (2007) that faculty needs to
adopt a mindset that is alert to constant change, seeks divergent (and creative) thinking, and is
flexible and proactive in adapting course materials. In other words, faculty must anticipate
diverse learning needs of students and often quickly and creatively develop appropriate means
for knowledge transmission and generation. Universal design not only provides a framework of
instructional principles, but more so a fresh concept that appears to be an acceptable reason for
faculty to review their teaching methods and to be receptive to professional development. In fact,
getting exposed to the principles of UD arguably captures faculties’ intellectual curiosity
(McGuire et al., 2006; Zeff, 2007). However, this exposure is still limited at most institutions
even though, as proposed in the problem statement, external pressures on higher education
include the need to teach a diverse student population, challenge pedagogy to include technology,
as well as call for learning outcome accountability.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

45

Pairing Universal Design and Technology
Without a doubt technology is pervasive in our world today. Students have grown up
with computers and the Internet. They are connecting through Facebook and utilizing cloud
computing; in fact, as early as 2001, Prensky (2001) referred to this population as digital natives.
Universities rely on course management systems like Blackboard. Increasingly, courses in
higher education are also available in online formats. Technology dovetails well with UD
because it indeed supports accessibility to learning contents for all students. While the mere use
of technology or the knowledge of UD principles alone will not guarantee delivery of quality
learning contents, or offer pedagogical methods in terms of teaching and learning, technology
and UD together provide a strategic framework for creating and delivering learning content for
diverse learners (Zeff, 2007).
Faculty perceptions of technology. As pointed out earlier in this review of the literature,
barriers to faculty development are manifold, with work stress and time constraints taking on
predominant roles. Thus, faculty are often resisting investing resources into course revisions
when other work pressures, like service commitments or research demands, appear more
imminent. These time constraints are not expanded because faculty might be technologically
challenged, but rather, as a study by Schuldt and Totten (2008) proposed, because of the fact that
technology increases faculty availability to students, colleagues and administrators, extending
their work into a ubiquitous 24/7 playing field. The researchers, however, investigated primarily
issues of connectivity via email and did not specifically look at classroom application of
technology. It is necessary to also investigate the use or avoidance of technology to establish
why faculty is often reproached with reluctance to change, or to adopt technology (Davis, 2003).
Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) tried to understand faculty’s intention to use Web 2.0 resources
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

46

applying a decomposed theory of planned behavior. In a nutshell, this theory looks at the
antecedents of attitude, subjective norms, and believed behavioral controls to reveal specific
factors in behavioral intention that influence the adoption of technology. The researchers
attempted to answer two research questions: (a) Is faculty aware of Web2.0 technologies, and to
what extent? And (b), which factors best predict faculty’s adoption of Web 2.0 applications for
instruction? (Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008, p.79). Interestingly, they found that while faculty
generally believed that using technology would improve their students’ learning and their
interaction with them, few were actually using technology in their classrooms (such as blogs,
wikis, social networks, etc.). Further, faculty attitudes towards technology were influenced
mostly by ease of use and usefulness. Noteworthy was the finding that the influence of
colleagues, students and superiors was positive; in other words, if the culture promotes and
supports the use of technology, faculty is more likely to pursue its application. In this context,
the degree of self-efficacy for using technology also played a significant role in that strong self-
efficacy supports perceived behavioral control and, consequently, behavioral intention that
translates into action. The results of Ajjan and Hartshorne’s (2008) study delivered solid
evidence that faculty needs more training to translate their perceptions of positive impacts of
learning that is facilitated through technology into the classroom—leading to actively engage the
learners as well as maintain an ongoing exchange with other faculty. In effect, this behavior
supports sharing and creation of knowledge beyond the classroom setting itself.
Applying universal design principles and technology to support faculty
learning. Based on the above discussion, it is evident that faculty development needs to be
motivational, inclusive of diverse faculty learners, cost-effective under the fiscal pressures of
today’s economy, and employ modern technologies. Wlodkowski (2003), for example, applied
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

47

four conditions of the Motivational Framework for Cultural Responsive Teaching to faculty
development that reflect UD principles in application: (a) promoting a friendly tone of inclusion
to promote intrinsic motivation and respect, (b) making sure that workshop content is relevant to
participants and ideally presented or modeled by peers to nurture interest, (c) engaging learners
in challenging activities that lead to new knowledge and idea creation, and (d) using a variety of
approaches and strategies (like problem-based learning, role-playing, etc.) that bolster faculty
competence. The researcher further proposed that building in formative assessment measures
with those activities can build participants’ self-efficacy because they can review their
performance against their own capabilities.
Kukulska-Hulme (2012) drew on many examples that support faculty learning by
exposing them to learning situations that their students might be in; for example, making them
the online student, or having them use mobile technologies. Robertson (2011) presented a model
in great detail for how to utilize blogs for student learning that provides a conceptual framework
that can be applied for faculty learning. The model helps faculty to gain an understanding of
blog dynamics and the type of learning that takes place through certain activities so that they
then can apply that to student blogs. Even though blogs are just one means of online learning,
Robertson’s (2011) exploration of the affordances of blogs served as an applicable example for
some advantages of online learning. The study highlighted two elements in particular that
support the argument for faculty online learning: self-directed learning and community-based
learning. For example, reading and responding to peers’ blog posts builds faculty’s empathy for
peers, triggers contemplation of their own contributions and makes them plan their continued
learning. Kukulska-Hulme (2012) confirmed this applicability both among faculty peers and
between faculty and students, proposing that revisiting their own learning and development
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

48

through internet-based interaction within a community of learners will foster reflection on their
learning styles, their professional learning needs, and their role as an educator. Hiser (2008)
further proposed that online faculty development also allows for what she termed
“quasianonymity” (p. 2). More precisely, her study reported that faculty participating in online
development found it easier to ask questions and were involved in discussions with colleagues
from different disciplines. New faculty embraced the online environment as a 24/7 outlet not
only for questions, but also for frustrations, and senior faculty felt that their participation was
relieved from hierarchal pressures or having to espouse self-confidence when providing feedback
to junior colleagues (Hiser, 2011).
Kukulska-Hulme (2012) further established a “High Level Development Plan for
Lifelong Learning with Mobile Technology” (p. 6) that suggests that faculty must develop their
own teaching, learning, research in order to develop students in these areas ultimately making
them co-teachers, co-learners, and co-researchers. This concept resonates well as an example of
inclusiveness with the goal to eventually make the student an equal partner in the process of
knowledge generation. However, the researcher’s plan also emphasized a point generally
accepted by all researchers in this review: that departmental and institutional leadership must
effectively and proactively support faculty development. Across the board, faculty will be more
likely to make first steps to participate in development if such programs get promoted by
leadership that faculty respects and has direct contact with on a regular basis (for example, a
department chair), or if such programs are developed collaboratively and soliciting faculty input
and are tied to outcomes (Zeff, 2007). Arguably, these efforts have to be even stronger in
research institutions where teaching skills are not as highly rewarded, or not taken as seriously
by faculty themselves (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

49

An incentive to establish a faculty development program can, for example, be supported
by formulating learning outcomes for faculty (Hiser, 2008). These can range from learning
about pedagogy, to seeking improved student performance, to building faculty communities
based on interest. Teeter, Fenton, Nicholson, Flynn, Kim, McKay, O’Shaughnessy and Vajoczki
(2011) presented a case study initiated by the Center for Leadership in Learning at McMaster
University (one of the top-ranked public research universities in Canada), which might serve as
an example here. The university established four learning communities for faculty: Teaching
with technology, teaching professors, pedagogy, and first year instructors. These provide virtual
spaces for interaction as well as face-to-face opportunities, and public and non-public elements
to build an environment that faculty recognize as safe to explore new ideas or to take risks in
challenging legacy or conventional research, teaching, and learning approaches. This program
also emphasizes alignment with institutional goals, and, in this case, foremost reestablishing a
strong connection between research and scholarly teaching and learning. The team of
researchers observed, guided, and participated in these communities during the first year and
confirmed that the system has led faculty to connect far beyond traditional structures with
colleagues from other disciplines. At the same time, they found that participants took on a
heightened responsibility to exchange knowledge, discussing knowledge creation and forming a
link between teaching and learning.
Adding structural design and sourcing content for faculty development. Universal
design and technology can provide a conceptual platform for faculty development, and the above
strategies for establishing faculty development environments demonstrate that knowledge
exchange and generation is a by-product of the process itself. However, content building needs
further structure and guidance and in higher education it appears applicable to derive these from
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

50

instructional theories (Clark et al., 2008; Moore et al., 2003). Merrill (2002) presented a
comprehensive review of various instructional theories to explore differences and commonalities
and arrived at the following five instructional design principles as most relevant across all:
• Demonstration principle: Learning is promoted through observation of a
demonstration.
• Application principle: Learning is promoted through application of new knowledge.
• Task-centered principle: Learning is promoted when solving real-world problems.
• Activation principle: Learning is promoted when prior knowledge is activated to
connect to new knowledge.
• Integration principle: Learning is promoted when new knowledge is integrated into
the learner’s world. (Merrill, 2002, p. 44-45).
Clark et al. (2008) then translated these five principles into instructional methods that can be
universally applied and that should serve as implementation strategies:
• Offer clear and complete demonstrations of how to perform key tasks and solve
authentic problems.
• Provide analogies and examples that relate relevant prior knowledge to new learning.
• Provide realistic field-based problems to solve.
• Insist on frequent practice opportunities during training to apply what is learned and
receive feedback.
• Require application that requires part-task (practicing small chunks of larger tasks)
and whole-tasks applying as much of what is learned as necessary to solve complex
problems). (Clark et al., 2008, p. 13)
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

51

The latter principle builds on the theory that simple-to-complex sequencing will allow
entry points for the learner according to their level of prior knowledge, and with that diminish
the risk of cognitive overload (Clark et al., 2008; Van Merriënboer et al., 2005). In the context
of faculty development this means, for example, that including insights from so-called subject
matter experts (SMEs) who reveal step-by-step processes in task completion can be particularly
effective because it not only validates expertise (and, therefore, will be accepted by faculty), but
also supports reflection and understanding of content and, arguably, will further stir faculty’s
curiosity, lead to divergent thinking, and the creation of new knowledge (Clark et al., 2008; Ma,
2009). The fact that faculty, domain experts themselves, can relate to the expert task analysis
based on their prior knowledge allows accessing knowledge and information points according to
their needs and just-in-time (Van Merriënboer et al., 2005). The only difference to the
researchers’ approach is that they assumed the teacher releases information to the learner when
they need it, whereas, in the faculty learning-environment, self-directed learning should be the
norm. In addition, in the sense of positive deviance, faculty can selectively pick from the
underlying process scaffolds, for example, of a world-class scholar’s or a master teacher’s
instructional methods, and infuse their classroom environments with these insights.
Teeter et al.’s (2011) case study of a community of practice program can serve as well-
designed example for addressing the question of content and content distribution in faculty
development, and how their learning can further be supported and guided by adding content
based on Merrill’s (2002) principles and Clark et al.’s (2008) methods. Teeter et al.’s program
built on three guiding structural elements: (a) the domain, or community membership, which
supports a sense of identity and ownership; (b) the community, which supports members’
exchange of ideas; and (c) the practice, where members share knowledge and resources based on
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

52

their experience. This structural approach emphasized that learning is more than knowledge
acquisition but evolves in social (and physical) contexts that promote a sense of belonging,
responsibility and accountability. The primary thought exchange happens through asking
questions about best practices and considering topical and strategic intent (for example,
knowledge creation, or teaching innovation). This process is very well suited for applying
limited cognitive task analysis (CTA) (Clark et al., 2008). This method uses various interview
and observation strategies to expose incremental implicit and explicit knowledge from experts
within or outside the learning community in order to develop learning tasks that will answer to
Clark et al.’s instructional methods. Arguably, this will aid not only the acceptance of learning
about teaching but will involve faculty in their community and in collaboration. Ideally, this
approach will affect faculty’s instructional and educational practice internally (organizing
knowledge and experience and relate it to practice), externally (relating workplace experience to
practice outside of the institutional setting), and, lifelong (deepening and expanding interest in
topics continuously in and outside of the school environment). These three dimensions (internal,
external, lifelong) all involve critical and creative thinking, problem-solving and communication
abilities and require double-loop learning, no matter if in a virtual or physical environment, and
engage the learner in active learning (Moore et al., 2007).
In summary, this section has explored the principles of UD and technology and their
application for faculty development. Similar to the argument presented for the necessity of
creativity and creative approaches to faculty development it is suggested that the faculty learner
will benefit from immersive procedures that will let them explore creativity, UD, and technology
so that they can translate these applications into their curricula. Further, this section also has
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

53

proposed theoretical and practical approaches to building content on the web-based faculty
development platform that are derived from applicable instructional methods.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this literature review proposed that it appears timely to apply the principles
of UD as well as digital media to faculty development that is geared towards learning about
pedagogy. In addition, the above review has revealed that establishing an online faculty
development forum (FDF) to support faculty learning about pedagogy, creativity, UD and
technology should not only be feasible to break down the barriers to faculty development, but
more so to motivate faculty to be actively engaged in the process to ensure their professional
growth. Ideally, the FDF supports peer-to-peer exchange to support generative thought and idea
development. The author of this dissertation established a web-based FDF under consideration
of the current issues, the barriers, and expansion needs for faculty development and following the
guiding principles outlined in this review. Accordingly, this FDF intends to provide universal
access, be interactive, embed social aspects of persons’ interest groups such as webinars and
discussion forums. It features examples of problem-based learning modules, information about
learning theories, including motivational theories, and their application and sample exercises.
Further, the FDF aggregates from existing internal and external institutional sites such as centers
for teaching and instruction, sites that feature issues of teaching with technology, and resource
sites for universal design.
Interacting with the FDF continuously should foster the willingness of faculty to take
risks and develop and employ new teaching strategies that will support creative thinking in their
students and provide a stimulating learning environment that anticipates students’ learning needs
in our times. As mentioned earlier, Bandura’s (1978) model of self-efficacy points to the
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

54

importance of efficacy beliefs in relation to motivation, claiming that it influences both the effort
exerted as well as the level of persistence upheld (both internal attributes), and the belief in if an
action will lead to the desired outcome—that is, the perception of the external environment and
how instrumental it is in supporting the effort. Hence, the following elements should be
foundational in promoting, developing and serving to foster engagement in the FDF:
• Set concrete short and long-term goals through a participatory approach—this initiates
taking action and will lead to mastery experiences, which shows individuals that they
have the ability to succeed (see also Arad & Erez, 1986).
• Give concrete reasons for a change, as well as the short and long-term goals. Explain the
short-term challenges and the long-term values. Make clear why the change approach is
necessary. Emphasize also the long-term advantage of vicarious learning (i.e., offer “best
practices” modeled by other faculty).
• Provide opportunity for socializing and collaboration to create a positive mood
environment, solicit feedback on action plan and give feedback on input.
• Invite a discussion about topics in teaching and learning to trigger interest and action.
• Emphasize the benefits of an action plan to faculty as they relate to personal
development; make clear what individual short and long-term goals are. Consider that
faculty in our society are highly individualistic types who require a degree of autonomy.
• Foster understanding of how the individual efforts will benefit personal development in
the context of the department and/or school, or connecting personal interest with the
benefit of realizing a common goal.
In summary, the FDF naturally is subject to constant innovation and should, in effect,
take on its own life through faculty contributions—demonstrating the ability to adapt to sudden
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

55

change and ambiguities of our times and shaping learning, teaching and knowledge creation for
the future of faculty, students and the institution. Chapter Three will now establish the
methodology for testing if the FDF indeed will be successful in augmenting and fostering
creativity and innovation in faculty at the study site.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

56

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The previous chapters established why faculty development is essential and must be
supported through media that utilizes 21
st
century technology. Chapter One described why
faculty development is necessary positing that the constraints for faculty engagement in their
own learning eventually might leave future graduates ill-prepared for the demands of life in the
21
st
century. Further, it was proposed that faculty development will be fostered and enhanced
through a school-based online faculty development forum (FDF). Chapter Two explored current
barriers to faculty development such as workload issues, institutional culture and how these
impact faculty motivation in terms of engaging in development. It also established development
expansion needs such as allowing time for reflection and, most importantly, getting inspired to
learn about pedagogy and creative approaches to reinvent curricula. For example, by applying
methods rooted in universal design (UD) to ultimately support their own and, ultimately, their
students’ creativity and a sense for innovation. Finally, Chapter Two reinforced that a web-based
development platform not only will support faculty’s engagement with professional development
but will also be a vehicle to drive faculty learning through universal design and with technology
thus preparing them to more readily implement these in their classrooms.
This chapter established the methodology for this study. Research reviewed in Chapter
Two looked at both quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches depending on their
research purposes. In the study at hand, deductive, quantifiable survey questioning provided
descriptive statistics in regards to faculty usage of and learning through the FDF. This included
selected open-ended survey questions to probe for what faculty found meaningful or salient in
terms of their experience and in regards to their development needs. Site usage reports supported
frequencies of use overall and for different content categories. In addition, interviews delivered a
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

57

richer and deeper layer of information and complement the Likert-type scaled survey items
responses by providing insights into faculty contexts and perceptions. Observations of faculty
reactions and comments triggered by the site or its usage, and collected either via e-mail or
through informal conversations throughout the study period, further enriched the data (Patton,
2002).
In summary, this was a concurrent transformative mixed methods study, using embedded
strategy (Creswell, 2009). Its purpose was to research the following question and its sub-
questions:
1. To what extent did the web-based development platform provide a universally
accessible and acceptable source that effectively motivated faculty to engage in
professional development?
1.1 To what extent did faculty use the web-based platform?
1.2 To what extent did faculty indicate interest in further learning about issues in
instruction?
1.3 To what extent is the web-based development platform effective in exposing
faculty to multiple means of learning and instruction, such as universal design in
learning and instruction?
1.4 To what extent is the web-based platform effective in augmenting or fostering
faculty creativity for curriculum innovation, such as project-based learning or
using instructional technology?
1.5 To what extent did faculty engage in thought exchange with peers on this
platform?
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

58

The study included both quantitative and qualitative faculty survey data; the survey and
follow-up evaluation of webinars were distributed via Qualtrics. Site usage reports of content
access supplied supplemental data. Lastly, interviews were conducted in person at the school
site to enrich the quantitative data.
Site and Sample Population
The results of the study helped demonstrate if and how the web-based platform
succeeded in providing meaningful faculty development. This section describes the
characteristics of the study site as well as the sample population.
Study Site
The study combined a physical and a virtual setting. The physical unit of analysis was
the business school at a large top-tier four-year private research university in a major
metropolitan area. It is the largest school on its campus with a diverse faculty and student
population. The virtual unit or online site was the faculty development forum (FDF). It was
populated with sourced content, selected to provide introductions to issues in teaching and
learning, concepts of curriculum design, universal design, as well as featuring topic areas such as
aspects of creativity and innovation. This virtual environment allowed for multiple means of
participation, both interactive (e.g., discussion boards) and non-interactive (e.g., watching video-
content) to motivate faculty use and participation.
In summary, the FDF at the study site was created to foster faculty development with a
particular focus on teaching, learning, creativity and innovation, and universal design. The study
can be considered action-research that investigated the effectiveness of this web-based form of
faculty development. Since the study site is one of several schools at a larger university, it offers
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

59

an ideal opportunity for a case study that can potentially inform other schools on campus, and if
they might consider developing a similar platform for their faculty.
Participant Population
This section describes the sample population for this study. The business school at this
site is a professional school that employs tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure track (teaching) full-
time faculty, as well as a variety of other instructors, such as part-time faculty, teaching
assistants, or visiting scholars. Assuming all faculty need development opportunities, the FDF
does not discriminate between those groups, even though it might offer topic or forums that are
geared towards a particular population. By contrast, the study aimed to distinguish usage
frequencies for the subgroups by track and years of teaching experience as shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1

Faculty Participant Groups

Label Faculty
Group 1
Non-tenure track faculty: Assistant professor (year 1-3 =
novice; year 4-7 experienced); associate professor (year 8 -13);
full professor (year 8-13, and beyond).
Group 2 Tenure-track faculty: Assistant professor (year 1-3 = novice;
year 4-7 experienced).
Group 3 Tenured faculty: Associate professor (year 8 -13); full professor
(year 11-13, and beyond).
Group 4 Part-time faculty
Group 5 Others

Even though the user outcome survey was distributed to all faculty, it was assumed that
not all will complete it; other feedback and data collection queried subsets of participants and
content users, such as participants in a particular webinar. Purposeful sampling was used to
select potential interviewees (Patton, 2009; Creswell, 2009). For example, a faculty who hosted
a webinar was interviewed to learn details about their experience. In summary, the sample of
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

60

this population and its subgroups were random in size and were complemented by purposeful
sampling for the interviews as faculty availability allowed.
Instrumentation
This study was designed as a concurrent transformative mixed methods study, using
embedded strategy (Creswell, 2009). This means the study combined elements of the pragmatic,
the advocacy, and participatory worldviews because it should lead to an understanding of the
researcher’s theories that faculty needed professional development but lack resources, time, and
motivation and that they can be aided through the web-based platform. As such, the study
explored if faculty engaged with the web-based platform, probed if they found it helpful, and
assessed if it supported their learning and teaching. Furthermore, the study was considered
participatory since the researcher is also a faculty member at the site and not only sourced
content for the platform, but also actively took part in its forms of use (Creswell, 2009; McEwan
& McEwan, 2003). This action-research is change oriented because the goal was to translate
research findings into the continued improvement of the platform, and therewith the professional
growth of faculty (Creswell, 2009; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Patton, 2002) (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1
Study Design

Figure 3.1 Concurrent transformational design. Embedded qualitative
open-ended questions in quantifiable survey, interviews and observations.

QUANTITATIVE

QUALITATIVE

Worldview: Pragmatic-advocacy-participatory
QUAN
QUAL
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

61

Throughout the semester, feedback about the usefulness and effectiveness of selected
FDF items was collected via brief built-in surveys, discussion board use, and other forms of
observations, such as emailed comments, questions or informal conversations. This continuous
informant feedback contributed to the credibility and validity of the study outcomes
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). It also provided usage and usefulness indicators that were
confirmed by the more comprehensive user outcome survey at the end of the study period.
The brief webinar follow-up and user-outcome surveys were distributed via email and
queried closed questions using Likert scales, eliciting quantitative information; concurrently,
these were supported by qualitative open-ended questions. Likert scales are a widely used self-
report tool that seeks to query attitudes, opinions, and application use (Robinson, Kurpius &
Stafford, 2006; Miller, Lin & Gronlund, 2009). The quantifiable questions were deductive to test
the theory at hand, while the open-ended questions were inductive and provided supportive and
deeper insights into faculty needs, as well as identified potential themes that informed future
development of the platform.
The user-outcome survey questions (Appendix A) were designed to represent the
construct variables shown in Table 3.2, most of them repeatedly, to provide and maximize
construct and face validity (Hardesty & Bearden, 2004; Trochim, 2006).

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

62

Table 3.2

Construct Variables of Faculty Engagement With the FDF

Variable Description
Motivation

Awareness of necessity to make an active choice, persist in its execution, and
the willingness to learn new things.

Reflection Realization of importance of reflection for self-growth and to develop
consideration for student learners.

Double-loop
learning
Necessity to explore root causes of problems and reflect on and revise
perceptions and attitudes towards self and others (peers, students).

Attribution Influence of faculty’s locus of control. External: importance of feeling valued
in environment and attributing behaviors accordingly; internal level of ability
assumption.

Goal orientation Identification of goal emphasis and awareness of and alignment with
departmental and school goals.

Culture Realizing culture as shared history, values, goals, beliefs, and work processes
of a specific group.

Pedagogy Knowledge of learning theories and instructional methods, awareness of
learners’ learning style, importance of learning objectives and outcomes, etc.,
to apply in curriculum.

Universal
Design
Learning about and applying multiple means of instruction.

Creativity Understanding the concept of creativity and creative thinking and its
importance in today’s world and in teaching approaches. Distinguishing
between divergent and convergent thinking.

Innovation Translating creative thought into instructional method and content.

Technology Learning with and about available technology and their classroom
applications.

To demonstrate the survey’s face validity and how variables were embedded and queried,
it is helpful to deconstruct one survey question and response as an example. Survey question
seven (Q7) will serve this purpose. It asked: “Since using the FDF, are you more aware of your
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

63

students’ learning styles and needs than previously?” The question’s variables were attribution,
reflection, and pedagogy. Respondents answered on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 5 (To a Great
Extent). A sample response that indicates To a Large Extent can be interpreted as follows:
Being more aware implies that the respondent must reflect on learning styles. This reflection,
however, includes the realization and a degree of an understanding of the existence of different
learning styles, what they are, and how the faculty has to address them in order to meet the
student’s learning needs. Understanding learning styles is an essential element of pedagogy.
Further, an increased awareness of learning styles will contribute to positive attribution because
the faculty experiences a heightened ability assumption when interacting with students. This
supports the faculty’s internal locus of control (feeling enabled), and should translate to their
external locus of control (better classroom management). In turn, experiencing these feelings
leads to stabilizing or increasing self-efficacy and feeling a worthy member of the culture the
faculty is operating in (Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Weiner, 2010).
Embedding the variables in this way into the survey questions was an audience
appropriate approach that served the study well. Face validity stabilizes if respondents with
similar backgrounds take the survey (Nevo, 1985). The sample population, business school
faculty, shares a common vocabulary by the nature of their occupation and disciplines within
their particular school environment or culture. Follow-up interviews further confirmed that
faculty understood the questions in a similar way or did not interpret them differently, thus
maximizing the survey’s construct and face validity.
Research outcomes also informed future improvements for the FDF. Table B1
(Appendix B) shows the construct variables in relation to the research questions and their
respective sub-questions. Table B2 (Appendix B) sampled how overarching constructs or
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

64

themes related to the research questions and to selected FDF modules. Both tables identified if
data was derived quantitatively or qualitatively.
As is common practice in product research and development, this study’s instruments
were based on a conceptual framework to provide a thorough evaluation that satisfied the criteria
of validity (Clark & Estes, 2008). Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation system builds the
foundation for developing all measurement tools to assess if presented processes were
worthwhile, if users liked the FDF and if it furthered their engagement with presented materials,
or indicated where potential adaptations are necessary. In detail, Kirkpatrick’s four-level
evaluation system looks at the reaction (Level One), learning (Level Two), behavior/transfer
(Level Three), and results (Level Four). While the first two levels primarily concern the
development phase (Level One: Are the participants motivated? Do they like it? Level Two: Is
the system in place effective? Do they participate and learn?), the latter two could be applied to
continue evaluation of the FDF once faculty has begun using it (Level Three: Will faculty
transfer, or plan to apply, any of the presented concepts? Level Four: Is the usage of the FDF
contributing to enhancing faculty development? What impact does the FDF have?) (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Kirkpatrick’s system dovetails well with Guba’s (1981) trustworthiness criteria:
namely, the data’s credibility (Is it believable?); transferability (Can it inform another setting?);
dependability (Can data be tracked and is it the method of collection logic?); and confirmability
(Can data be traced back to its original source?).
Most importantly, the varied methods of data collection established data triangulation.
This was particularly important since the main instrument (the user outcome survey) was
developed for this study specifically and had face validity but did not have recognized reliability
or validity. However, triangulation supported construct validity (concepts were measured),
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

65

content validity (survey measured content it was intended to measure), and concurrent validity
(quantitative results concurred with qualitative results) (Creswell, 2009). Further, triangulation
reduced the possibility of erroneous interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data and
showed sufficient support for the hypothesis at hand (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007).

In summary, this section established the methods of the study’s instrumentation, its
conceptual framework and how it related to the research questions. Since this research was
action-oriented, the author also closely monitored faculty interaction with the platform.
Data Collection and Length of Study
This section briefly describes additional data collection specifics for this study.
Information was collected throughout the fall semester and at the start of the spring term. At the
start of the fall semester, an invitation to visit the FDF was sent to all faculty (N=348) and was
reinforced throughout the semester whenever new content was added, or when topics were added
to the discussion board. Follow-up mini surveys to webinars were sent at the end of each one,
and the researcher responded to user inquiries on an ongoing basis via email and in person.
Primarily, survey questions were constructed with five-point Likert scales when using adjectives
(Meltzoff, 2010). Some questions had additional weighing to be entered on an additional scale
of importance. Further, open-ended questions were added. The survey was distributed to faculty
via Qualtrics. Figure 3.2 provides an overview of the study period.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

66

Figure 3.2

Data Collection and Length of Study Overview

Fall Semester 2012 to Spring Semester 2013
(September 2012 to January 2013)
Spring Semester
2013
Early-September Mid-October Early-December January 2013
Data Analysis
Results
Discussion
Continuous site usage monitoring and observations
User Feedback
End-of-Study
Outcome Survey
Interviews

Because of workload and time constraints, the time-window to respond to the end-of-
study survey needed to be wide enough and appropriate for its length. Accordingly, the survey
was sent out during study days, between the end of classes and beginning of finals, which
provided such time-window for faculty. The survey remained open over the semester break, and
one final reminder was sent at the start of the new term. In addition, derived from the
information value of the survey responses, a purposeful sample of faculty participated in survey
follow-up interviews providing additional supportive data. Data for discussion boards could
only be included in the form of access numbers, since participation was too low to be meaningful.
Demographic questions in the user outcome end-of-study survey only asked faculty to
identify their group (see Table 3.1). Frequencies were derived through research questions 1.1
and 1.2 as well as through user reports generated the site’s software. Tables B1 and B2 show the
variables and type of analysis for research questions and for sample FDF content modules
(Appendix B). As mentioned under Instrumentation, selected interviews were conducted for
breadth and depth.
In summary, data collection was embedded and concurrent. The survey response rate as
well as the platform usage indicators emerging themes necessitated follow-up interviews to the
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

67

survey. All responses were reported anonymously. The Non-Human Subjects Research
Application (NHSR) for the study was approved by the institution’s IRB.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study, in greater detail, was to (a) investigate faculty engagement
with a newly introduced web-based platform, (b) assess how and if it leads to increased interest
in pedagogy, approaches to teaching and curriculum design, an understanding of UD, (c)
determine if the module succeeds to augment and foster creativity and innovation in faculty for
their benefit, and (d) to query if faculty will be encouraged to develop and apply strategies that
will prepare their student population for challenges in the 21
st
century workplace.
The first question in the end-of-study users outcome survey queried faculty’s subgroup
employment status (as explained in Instrumentation) to distinguish usage patterns of the FDF and
establish potential differences in development needs by subgroup. As predicted, the groups
differed in sample size for the main survey (assuming that not every faculty will respond each
survey), and more non-tenure track faculty responded; arguably, because their first obligation is
teaching, whereas tenure-track or tenured faculty focus on research.
To analyze the how and the why behind the scaled, closed-ended questions, those
quantified results were compared to the qualitative data derived from open-ended survey
questions, from interviews for which a coding schema was developed, as well as observations of
faculty issues in relation to the site’s technology its limitations (McEwan & McEwan, 2003).
This triangulation added to the validity and legitimation of the study’s findings because certain
results emerged in open-ended as well as in closed-ended questions and was also supported by
the description of observations (Creswell, 2009; Patton, 2009). Any significant conflicts
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

68

between the quantitative and qualitative responses did not arise and thus did not need to be
interpreted (Patton, 2009).
Summary
This chapter explained the methodology of this study. It established the sample
population, the site of investigation, and the instrumentation. Further methods of data collection
and analysis were introduced. This research was conducted in the form of a mixed-methods
study. The results are presented Chapter Four and discussed in Chapter Five, where the
interpretation of the results relate back to the theories and the research that were established in
Chapter Two.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

69

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore if an online forum for faculty’s professional
development (FDF) can be an effective and acceptable tool to support their efforts in terms of
teaching and learning. Online access should provide faculty just-in-time access to materials such
as information about learning theories, teaching strategies, and instructional technologies
because the pressures of their occupation might prevent them from participating in other
institutional brick and mortar workshops. Thus, the FDF features materials with a focus on
business school faculty, aiming to contribute to foster their motivation and engagement with
issues about teaching and learning and also to provoke them to change or further develop their
curricula in creative and innovative ways. Lastly, the web-based module and its webinars
intended to give faculty an opportunity to use and learn about instructional technology.
The study looked at how faculty responded to the site. It investigated if and how the
module succeeded in providing an environment that motivated faculty to participate in online
development to learn about pedagogical concepts and potentially rethink their teaching
approaches to provide equitable and engaging learning environments for students. Accordingly,
the following research question and its supporting questions were explored:
1. To what extent did the web-based development platform provide a universally accessible
and acceptable source that effectively motivated faculty to engage in professional
development?
1.1 To what extent did faculty use the web-based platform?
1.2 To what extent did faculty indicate interest in further learning about issues in
instruction?
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

70

1.3 To what extent was the web-based development platform effective in exposing
faculty to multiple means of learning and instruction, such as universal design in
learning and instruction?
1.4 To what extent was the web-based platform effective in augmenting or fostering
faculty creativity for curriculum innovation, such as project-based learning or using
instructional technology?
1.5 To what extent did faculty engage in thought exchange with peers on this platform?
This descriptive study used both quantitative and qualitative data collection. This chapter
presents the results in a qualitative way.
Context
The following context about the FDF is important to understand the results. The site’s
launch was announced to all school faculty (regardless of part- or full-time) via email coming
from a vice dean’s office just before the start of the fall term. To attract faculty to visit the site,
content valuable for the start of the semester, such as materials to support a successful first day
of class, was highlighted in the announcement. Post launch, weekly new content was added and
announcements for these items automatically posted to the school’s internal Internet news portal,
from which faculty can link to the FDF. The researcher considered this announcement feature
the most adequate way to inform faculty to avoid overwhelming them with email and to reserve
the email option for informing faculty about participatory events. Accordingly, a month after the
launch, in late September, three FDF mid-semester webinars were announced via email to all
faculty. This means that in the month of October weekly email announcements that alerted to
the FDF went to all faculty. Furthermore, at the end of October, the vice dean’s office sent out
an additional announcement that the FDF was now accessible directly also through a link on the
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

71

school’s main website. In other words, by the end of October faculty had received 11 direct
emails regarding the FDF in addition to the content item announcements on the school’s news
portal.
The invitation to participate in the survey was sent out by the vice dean’s office during
study days in mid-December, which offered a time-window for faculty, and should yield a high
response rate. To further incentivize faculty to take the survey, the message also included an
announcement for two webinars to be held early January to stir curiosity in visiting the FDF.
In summary, site launch and study start coincided. Multiple announcements about the
FDF to all faculty aimed to create awareness and create interest. This context helps explain
faculty usage patterns reported in the quantitative and qualitative results below.
Population and Sample
At the end of the fall semester 2012, during study days, the user survey (Appendix A)
was sent out to all, or 100%, of the school’s faculty, regardless of it they had used the FDF. This
equaled a total of 348, or 248 full-time (tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure track) and 100 part-
time faculty. The survey’s distribution was strategically timed to coincide with so-called study
days, which provide a time-window for faculty between the end of classes and the start of finals
and should potentially yield a significant response rate. Twenty-seven responses (n=27) were
collected via the survey, which equaled 7.75% of the total population. This sample of a
population that shares specific characteristics, such as all being members of the same
professional community, can be regarded as significantly high when comparing it, for example,
to the survey rationale and practices of the Gallup organization, a world-renowned opinion and
behavior research institution (Gallup, 2010). They use a random sample of 1,000 adults
(meaning 18 years and over) to represent the 235 million United States adult population, as
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

72

counted by the United States Census Bureau in 2010 (Howden & Meyer, 2011). This calculates
to a 0.000425% sample of the United States adult population, or a sample to population ratio of
1:235,000, whereas this study’s sample to population ratio is 1:13.
In addition, even though the announcement was sent to a population of 348, it could not
be determined how many of those were actually active, meaning some survey recipients might be
retired, away on sabbatical, or not currently teaching (for example, part-time faculty is kept on
the distribution list, even though they might teach only every other semester). A conservative
estimate could reduce the population to about 300, which would reflect a participation rate of 9%.
The distribution of survey participants led to a purposeful sampling of six interviewees:
one tenure-track, four non-tenure track (two senior, and two junior in rank), and one part-time
faculty.
Survey
In the following, the findings of the survey will be presented as they align with the
research questions. Quantitative are followed by qualitative results. Accordingly, the main
survey results are presented first, followed by the site usage data. The main trends that emerged
from the survey results were used as basis for interview questions to seek further support for the
main survey findings. The interview outcomes provided further insights to the research
questions. Finally, limited observations about faculty in relation to instructional technology
usage further triangulated the data, supporting its validity.
Because of the site’s uniqueness, the researcher did not rely on existing instruments, but
developed the questionnaire to explore its usage and effectiveness. The survey questions were
composed to query all variables to support construct and face validity (see Chapter Three and
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

73

Appendix A). The survey included 25 questions (Q) total, of which 20 were quantitative, four
open-ended, and one demographic. Accordingly, the first question queried a faculty’s
position and the second question asked if the participants had accessed the FDF or not. Fifteen
of the quantitative research questions used five-point Likert scales. Possible answer choices for
questions ranged from do not use to very useful, not at all to a great extent, or strongly disagree
to strongly agree. Two questions were multiple-choice (mark all that apply), four solicited open-
ended responses, and three queried frequencies of site access or attendance of events.
Survey Results
Research question 1 (RQ1) asked, “To what extent will the web-based development
platform provide a universally accessible and acceptable source that effectively motivates faculty
to engage in professional development?” This comprehensive question included a look at the
qualities of the sample, such as faculty position, and number of participants per group to show
who accessed the FDF, which in turn indicated by whom it was accepted. Table 4.1 shows non-
tenure track and adjunct faculty (who are usually teaching faculty) were the majority of survey
takers (67%), which proposed that the site is more attractive to teaching faculty; it also makes
clear that of the 27 (n=27) respondents actually 13 (48%) had used the FDF.

Table 4.1

Faculty Positions, Number of Respondents, and Site Usage

Position
Number of
Respondents
Percent
Used
FDF

Did Not Use
FDF

Non-tenure track 14 52% 7 7

Tenure-track 4 15% 2 2

Tenured 4 15% 2 2

Adjunct 4 15% 2 2

Other 1 4% - 1

TOTAL 27 100% 13 14

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

74

As a comparison, the actual number of unique faculty who used the site averaged at 49
per month and was higher than the number of FDF users who participated in the survey (Table
4.2).
Table 4.2

Unique Faculty Site Users

Month Unique Faculty
September 32
October 51
November 47
December 64
Monthly Average 49
Note. Source: Site usage reports. Unique users were
identified by user name.

Assuming that 13 of 49 faculty responded to the survey, the response rate calculated at
26.5% of 49, or 3.73% of the total population (N=348). Eleven of 13 users reported their
frequency of FDF access with seven reporting visiting the FDF more than once a month. This
access pattern appeared reasonable since the FDF is not a daily news site. Table 4.3 shows
faculty users’ access patterns.
Table 4.3

User Access Frequencies of Survey Participant Faculty

Frequency Participants
Less than once a month 4
Once a month 2
2-3 Times a month 3
Once a week 2
2-3 Times a week 0
Daily 0
Total Participants 11

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

75

Participants who identified as non-users in survey Q2 were prompted to indicate why
they did not use the FDF. Sixty percent of the non-users reported time constraints, which
confirmed the barriers to faculty development and workload issues outlined in the literature
review (e.g., Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Burke & Rau, 2005; Gappa, 2008; Jacob &
Winslow, 2004; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Sorcinelli, 2007). Further, as interviewees in this study
also conveyed, email invitations or announcements quickly push out of view if they are not of
concrete immediate interest, which helped explain that 47% of the non-users claimed not to be
aware of the FDF, despite frequent emails about the FDF (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4

Faculty Reasons for Not Using the FDF

Reasons for not Using
Number of
Responses
%
I am confident in my teaching approaches 4 27%
I am well-versed in issues of student learning 1 7%
I have not had time 9 60%
I did not teach this semester 3 20%
I had trouble accessing the FDF 0 0%
I was not aware of the FDF 7 47%
Other (please indicate) 2 13%
Reply 1: Used my own survey [response unclear]

Reply 2: Just beginning to be made aware of it.

Further, since site usage was necessary in order to answer the site content questions, non-
users were only prompted to add an open-ended comment and then end the survey. Users, on the
other hand, were prompted to complete all survey questions before adding an open-ended
comment, in their case particularly to see if they had any suggestions for improvement. The non-
user responses summarized the overall issues that again pointed back to faculty’s time limitations,
or a wish for more administrative guidance. One survey participant also indicated an area of
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

76

improvement highlighting a potential problem with how the site is branded or presented. These
responses were critical and supported the overall effectiveness and acceptance of the site in that
it motivated faculty to reflect and articulate their concerns. Table 4.5 displays the answers of
users and non-users.
Table 4.5

Users and Non-Users Impressions or Suggestions for FDF Improvement (RQ1)

Non-User User

R1: The concept is fantastic. Wish I felt
like I had time.

R2: Not familiar with it.

R3: I will start taking FDF seriously,
partly as a result of this survey.

R4: Do not have any as yet as I have not
accessed it but will in the coming
semester.

R6: The site generally looks very
comprehensive. I look forward to examining
the resources more carefully after I get my
grades in for the semester and will be able to
provide more specific feedback at that time.
I appreciate the extensive section on dealing
with exam security issues. It may be useful
to add material on plagiarism in papers and
other assignments.

R5: Until this survey, I had no idea that
some of the things I did or explored
were somehow connected to something
called FDF. In fact, I had to look it up
to figure out what it was. So FDF as a
concept is very, very far down the list in
terms of brand recognition. I had no
idea, for example, that the webinars I
participated in (and thought quite good)
had anything at all to do with something
called FDF.

R7: There needs to be a more coherent plan
for all of our courses starting with what it is
we're trying to teach at the School level, then
department level, and finally individual
course level. The FDF might support that if
the plan was in place first and then materials
were posted relevant to the various parts of
the plan. As it is now, it is largely a
voluntary system with each faculty member
given the maximum flexibility to design any
content they want for their course once the
course description is approved. To my
knowledge, there's no feedback look to see if
what was approved is currently being taught
or how multiple sections of the same course
are similar or different beyond some vague
guidelines. [points to a different issue]
Note. R=Response

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

77

To examine the underpinnings of RQ1, five sub-questions explored the if and how of the
FDF’s potential success in furthering the elements of faculty development expansion needs
established in Chapter Two. In detail, they queried indicators of usage, usefulness and
effectiveness of content in that faculty might show motivation to reflect on their teaching and
potentially implement new ideas and processes.
Research question 1.1, “To what extent will faculty use the web-based platform?” probed
the prerequisite for any other exploration of FDF content application. Interestingly, the survey
question about the overall assessment of the FDF presented higher means than the more detailed
questions that addressed specific content areas like instructional design or creativity. This can
be due to the site’s short run time. Faculty seemed to embrace the concept of the FDF and the
information it offers, but had no opportunity yet to fully explore it. Table 4.6 shows the overall
assessments of the FDF.
Table 4.6

Overall Assessments of the FDF (RQ1)

Survey Statement Mean (SD)
The FDF supports creativity in developing course content. 4.18 (0.75)
The FDF supports innovativeness in instructional approaches. 4.00 (0.77)
The FDF is a valuable tool in supporting professional growth. 4.27 (0.90)
The FDF supports a culture of learning. 4.36 (0.67)
The FDF supports community building among faculty. 4.27 (0.79)
Note. Scale = 1-Strongly Disagree to 5-Strongly Agree

Accordingly, the results for overall usefulness of content sections showed a relatively
high mean (M=3.64) for links to external content, or instructional videos, and only a moderate
mean (M=3.18) for content pages about subject areas. Webinars, on the other hand, which
provided a space for thought exchange, were considered useful, and allowing first insights into
RQ1.5 or if the platform engaged faculty in peer exchange (Table 4.7).
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

78

Table 4.7

Overall Usefulness of Content Sections (R.1, 1.1)

FDF Content Sections Mean (SD)
Content pages about subject areas
(e.g., Instructional Design)
3.18 (1.47)
Links to resources
(e.g., websites, videos)
3.64 (1.50)
Announcement features (RSS) 3.36 (1.63)
Webinars 3.36 (1.36)
Discussion board 2.27 (1.19)
Note. Scale = 1-Do Not Use to 5-Very Useful

Of the content areas, however, faculty selected Instructional Design the most (Table 4.8).
This indicated that faculty is primarily interested in direct teaching approaches for their
classrooms, but exploring underlying theories is of secondary concern (Clark et al., 2008).
Table 4.8

Usefulness of Content Sections About Teaching and Learning (RQ1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)

FDF Content Sections Mean (SD)
Instructional design (e.g., learning objectives,
multiple means of instruction)

3.82 (1.17)
Learning theories (e.g., student goal orientation) 3.36 (1.29)

Online learning

3.36

(1.29)

Technologies to enhance instruction and learning

3.36

(1.36)

Teaching ethics in business

3.27

(1.56)

Teaching critical thinking

3.18

(1.60)

Information about creativity and creative thinking

3.18

(1.54)

Teaching the Millennial Generation

3.27

(1.62)

Templates, Guidelines, and Syllabi

3.00

(1.48)

Other [not specified]

1.67

(1.15)
Note. Scale = 1-Do Not Use to 5-Very Useful
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

79

Considering Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation, these overall responses as well as
the responses regarding the usefulness of the site and its content areas satisfied the first two
levels positively, meaning overall the site was accepted and valued. The site supported a culture
of learning, and faculty found it Somewhat Useful with a tendency to Useful. Webinars
provided a forum for thought exchange; however, the discussion board was not valued highly, or
used. Of the content areas the highest mean reflected that issues of instructional design were the
most sought after. The means of the usefulness assessments showed that faculty realized their
school’s support for professional development through the FDF. According to Weiner (2010),
This positive attribution to an external cause strengthens faculty feeling valued, which, in turn,
leads to higher motivation. Survey questions six through sixteen corresponded primarily to the
following three research sub-questions: “To what extent did faculty indicate interest in further
learning about issues in instruction?” (RQ1.2); “To what extent is the web-based development
platform effective in exposing faculty to multiple means of learning and instruction, such as
universal design in learning and instruction?” (RQ1.3); and, “To what extent is the web-based
platform effective in augmenting or fostering faculty creativity for curriculum innovation, such
as project-based learning, or using instructional technology?” (RQ1.4). They probed faculty
more intricately about issues, methods, and processes of teaching and learning or if transfer of
learning contents took place and if it led to any results. These questions also provided insights
into the variables of motivation (reflection, double-loop learning, attribution, goal orientation),
pedagogy (teaching and learning), creativity, innovation, universal design, and technology (Table
4.9).

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

80

Table 4.9
FDF’s Effectiveness Promoting Interest and Creativity in Instruction (RQ1.2, 1.3, 1.4)
Survey Questions
a

Scale: 1 (Not at All) to 5 (To a Great Extent)
Variables Mean (SD)
Since using the FDF…
(RQ1.2/Q6) Has knowledge of teaching and learning
methods and processes increased (e.g., understanding of
instructional methods, learning theories)?
Motivation
Pedagogy
Reflection
UD
b

3.64 (1.21)
(RQ1.2/Q7) Has awareness of your students’ learning
styles and needs than previously?
Pedagogy
Reflection
3.27 (1.19)
(RQ1.3/Q8) Have you changed or are you planning to
change teaching approaches in the classroom?
Pedagogy
Reflection
DLL
c

Goals
Creativity
3.09 (1.03)
(RQ1.3/1.4/Q9) If you plan to change existing teaching
approaches, or develop new ones, will you include multiple
means of instruction (e.g., instructional technologies, “flip-
classroom techniques,” project/problem-based learning)?
Pedagogy
Reflection
DLL
Goals
UD
Technology
Creativity
3.55 (1.54)
(RQ1.4/Q11) Have you or will you revise the learning
objectives for a course?
Pedagogy
Goals
Creativity
Innovation
2.91 (1.38)
(Q12/supplemental) Do you review learning objectives and
outcomes with your students?
Pedagogy
Reflection
4.55 (0.52)
(RQ1.4/Q13) Since using the FDF, have you modified or
introduced new teaching approaches to enhance students'
critical thinking skills?
Pedagogy
DLL
Goals
Creativity
Innovation
3.0 (1.41)
(RQ1.4/Q14) Have you modified or introduced new
teaching approaches to enhance students' creative thinking
skills?
Creativity
Innovation
Goals
2.73 (1.19)
(RQ1.4/Q16) Have you designed or re-designed
instructional approaches to support your students’
reflection on their learning (e.g., reflective journals)?
Pedagogy
Reflection
Innovation
2.73 (1.10)

a
Survey questions (Q) Q6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 (Q10, 15, 17 were open ended).
b
UD = Universal Design.
c
DLL=Double-loop Learning.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

81

The higher means (M=3.64; M=3.55) in Table 4.9 proposed that faculty indeed spent time
in browsing and reflecting on content about instructional methods. In other words, the elements
of motivation, interest, active choice, and persistence, drove their action (Mayer, 2011). The
moderate mean (M=3.27) indicated that faculty browsed the FDF materials on instructional
design and learning theories and were slightly more aware of learning styles. A positive
response to question nine further supported that faculty was prompted to double-loop learning,
which is necessary to think through processes such as project based learning, or flip-classroom
approaches as emphasized in Chapter Two (Argyris, 1976; Bruton, 2010; Dochy et al., 2005;
Karakas, 2010; Kerr & Lloyd, 2008; Morrison & Johnson, 2003). This also indicated that
knowledge in those areas increased, or was transferred; however, as the relatively low means
(M=3.09; M=3.0; M=2.73; M=2.73) showed, faculty might not have applied their deepened or
new knowledge in their teaching. In other words, ideas and creative thought might have been
nurtured or stimulated in faculty due to exposure to the content materials, but creativity and
innovation have not (yet) increased because it will take time to translate new knowledge and
ideas into practice. The relatively high mean for in Question 12 cannot be attributed directly to
the FDF. Even though the intention was to ask if faculty more explicitly discussed learning
objectives and outcomes with their students, presumably, this confirmed it to be common
procedure for most.
Survey questions 10, 15, and 17 were open-ended. Of the four responses to Question 10:
“Please share any changes or planned changes to your teaching approaches,” three showed
indications of reflection and attempt for innovation in the classroom, while one response (R2)
clearly echoed the impressions of a senior level faculty. According to Klassen & Chiu (2010),
the senior faculty response is not surprising since self-efficacy will stabilize with continued
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

82

success (Table 4.10).
Table 4.10
Changes or Planned Changes to Teaching Approaches (RQ1.3, 1.4)

Survey Responses for Survey Question 10

R1: More on critical thinking, in class exercises, less lecture, more thought to different learners

R2: I've been teaching at the University level for many years and before that as an executive
educator and trainer so I have not felt the need for any of these materials. They seemed
geared to the new instructor.

R3: Moving more to online grading platforms with various technologies like Cengage Now or
Connect Plus to flip the classroom into more of a dialogue driven event when face-to-face.

R4: Still thinking of connections and applications to existing course materials -- but the
resources are useful not only as models but to stimulate fresh thinking and come up with
new activities, assignments, or approaches on our own.
Note. R=Response
Finally, five open-ended responses to Question 15: “Please share the greatest challenges
in enhancing students' critical and creative thinking skills,” elaborated on the challenges of
infusing students with critical thinking approaches against all odds, such as, “It’s hard to make
them think,” or, “They are obsessed with grades.” But these responses did not yield any insights
into if the materials on the FDF had made those tasks any easier and do not need to be replicated
here. Likewise, responses to Question17: “Since using the FDF have you or will you experiment
with other teaching innovations not noted above?” triggered reflection about innovation, but
respondents stipulated that they wanted to be innovative on a continuous basis, regardless of
using the FDF or not.
Survey questions 18, 19, and 20 particularly probed for issues about culture, goal
orientation, and attribution, and aimed to investigate RQ1.5: “To what extent will faculty engage
in thought exchange with peers on this platform?” As established in the literature review, peer
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

83

exchange not only is a strong contributor to a positive organizational culture, but also to building
a faculty’s self-efficacy, which helps them clarifying or promoting professional goals (Clark &
Estes 2008; Kaya et al., 2005; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Schein, 2004). As Table 4.11 shows,
notably, the high means of (M=3.9; M=3.64) indicated that the engagement with the FDF had
triggered some conversations or discussion with colleagues, which in turn, supports community
building and establishing a culture of teaching and learning necessary to motivate faculty in
continued engagement with these issues (Schein, 2004). Concrete or conscious goal setting, on
the other hand only yielded a not sure (M=3.09) response.
Table 4.11

Personal Growth and Colleague Interaction (RQ1.5)

Survey Questions 18, 19, 20 Mean (SD)
Q18: Since using the FDF, have you set personal goals for professional
growth?
3.09 (1.30)
Q19: Does the FDF support exchange among colleagues in issues of
teaching and learning (e.g., webinars)?
3.90 (1.20)
Q20: Have you discussed or shared insight gained from the FDF with
colleagues; for example, to seek input or collaboration?
3.64 (1.36)
Note. Scale: 1-Not at All to 5-To a Great Extent
Finally, survey question 24 asked faculty to report if and how often they had accessed
school and university sites that dealt with teaching and learning, and a few external sites the FDF
links to. Table 4.12 shows the access values per site (list is not exclusive, the FDF links to more
sites than recorded here).

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

84

Table 4.12

Access From FDF to Other Sites

Site Never
Once a
Term
Once a
Month
2-3
Times/
Month
Once a
Week
2-3
Times/
Week
Daily
Total
Hits
Mean
School’s
mentoring site
4 2 2 3 0 0 0 11 2.36
School’s grant
resources site
1 4 1 4 1 0 0 11 3.0
School’s center
for experiential
learning
5 1 3 1 0 1 0 11 2.36
University’s
teaching support
site
3 4 3 0 0 0 0 10 2.0
University’s
teaching with
technology site
5 3 2 0 0 0 0 10 1.7
External sites:
Edudemic 8 0 1 0 1 0 0

10 1.6
External site:
Teaching
Community
4 3 2 0 1 0 0 10 2.1
External site:
e-Learning guild
7 2 1 0 0 0 0 10 1.4

Evidently, the school’s own sites received more hits than the university’s or external sites,
with the site that offers information about grants being the most popular with 10 hits. Arguably,
faculty chose to access their own school sites more frequently than other university or external
sites, which indicated that school-based development was slightly more meaningful or applicable.
This was further supported by faculty’s favorable response to the usefulness of school-based
webinars (M=3.36) (Table 4.7). This trend also emerged from responses to Question 22: “As a
result of visiting the FDF, have you attended workshops provided by your school or the wider
university community?” Here, five faculty (45%) reported having attended a school event,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

85

compared to one faculty (9%) attending a workshop conducted by another university center
(Table 4.13).

In summary, the survey results provided support that the FDF is effective so far and
succeeded in motivating faculty to engage with issues of learning and instruction. FDF Site
Usage Reports, as well as the faculty interviews, and user feedback for webinars further
supported the results of the survey in relation to the research questions.
Site Usage Reports
The following section will provide selected statistics of site usage, such as number of
faculty users overall as well as content page visits. Records were collected on a monthly basis
over a period of four months, from late August (post launch) to the end of December. As a
comparison benchmark, the data from the start of the new term, or second term the site was used,
is also shown, but was outside the study period. The data reflected a trend similar to that
rendered through the survey when it comes to answering particularly RQ1: “To what extent will
Table 4.13

Workshop Attendance as a Result of FDF Visit

Answer
Number of
Responses
%
Attended a business school event 5 45%
Attended an event by the university’s scholarly technology center 1 9%
Attended an event by the university’s teaching excellence center 1 9%
Attended other university event 1 9%
Registered but was unable to attend 2 18%
Was interested, but event(s) did not fit my schedule 5 45%
I do not find workshops very helpful 0 0%
Other reasons for attending/not attending. Please indicate.
R1: [empty]
R2: Topics not relevant to my concerns
R3: I don’t really do anything ‘as a result of’ the FDF.
It plays a supporting, not determinative, role in my teaching.
3 27%
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

86

the web-based development platform provide a universally accessible and acceptable source that
effectively motivates faculty to engage in professional development?” RQ1.1: “To what extent
will faculty use the web-based platform?” The data proposed that the site’s usage provided an
accessible and acceptable platform. As Table 4.14 shows, on average 49 unique faculty
accounted for 192 page visits per month, or four visits per faculty (this is similar to the responses
of survey participant site users, see Table 4.3). Accordingly, the data suggested that the FDF
motivated faculty to repeat visits. However, clearly, these usage and motivation trends are not
indicative for any transfer or application of knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Table 4.14

Unique Faculty Site Users and Number of Page Visits

Month Unique Faculty
Total
Page Visits
Average
Page Visits
September 32 444 14
October 51 120 2
November 47 134 3
December 64 73 1
Monthly Average 49 193 4
January 65 95 162
Note. Source: Site Usage Reports. January added as a benchmark comparison with start of new term.

The FDF site is embedded in the school’s community portal and only permitted users can
access the site. The site is not searchable by research engines or their robots. This means that
any type of random visits that would embellish these usage reports were excluded. However,
the usage reports allowed counting the number of faculty and their visits per month (through
analysis of user names). The content page visits were accounted for by content area. The
general usage trend revealed in Table 4.15 showed that at launch fewer faculty visited more often,
whereas towards the end of the term, more faculty visited less often. While the higher content
page visit numbers are indicative of initial browsing, the higher number of faculty accessing the
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

87

site towards the end of the semester pointed to increased site recognition and faculty targeting
more specific content.
Table 4.15 displays a closer look at the content area usage that corresponded to the areas
queried in the survey.
Table 4.15

Number of Page Visits Grouped by Content Areas and Term (RQ1, 1.1, 1.2)

Content Areas (Selected)
Start
Term
Midterm
End
Term
End Term
Mean
Start
Term
Sep Oct Nov Dec (4 months) Jan
a

Pedagogy
Instructional Design 71 13 6 13 26 13
Learning Theories 55 6 13 5 20 13
Online Learning
b
- - 45 18 32 -
Instructional Technologies
c
60 2 22 0 21 -

Relevant Topics
Teaching Ethics in Business 53 9 6 10 20 5
Creativity, Critical & Creative Thinking
d
74 6 5 4 22 24
Teaching the Millennial Generation 49 11 6 3 17 -

Resources
Templates, Guidelines, and Syllabi 46 9 4 8 17 11
Faculty Resources (Grant Opportunities) 17 8 0 0 6 1
Announcements 17 16 23 12 17 6

Interactive Forums
Webinars
e
- 29 0 0 -

16
Discussion Board 2 11 4 0 4 6
TOTAL/month 444 120 134 73 193 95
a
January added for comparison only (start of new term).
b
Section was added in November.
c
Directly linked to school’s
internal teaching and technology site as of November.
d
Combined into one FDF content area but queried separately in
survey.
e
Webinars were held in October.

The number of page visits displayed in Table 4.15 further confirmed in more detail the
general usage trend. Evidently, after the FDF was launched, a surge in initial faculty visits
occurred. This first wave and its subsequent drop can be explained by two factors: (a) the site
was new and stirred interest, (b) faculty sought inspiration at the start of a new term and still
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

88

might have been in the process of designing course sessions and approaches, but will not return
to such activities once they finalized their lesson plans. Even though usage dropped in October
and November, it stabilized. This can most likely be attributed to a constant flow of
announcements about the FDF as content or a new section was added. For example, the FDF
webinar series was announced repeatedly in late September and October. At the same time, vice
deans initiated and announced a new section about online learning and a comprehensive school
syllabi depository. All such announcements always included a special “Visit the FDF” invitation.
Two other areas that were not specifically included in the survey received a comparatively high
number of hits. On a four-month average, “Current Issues in Higher Education” was accessed 16
times, and “Instructional Videos and Tech Guides” eight times, further supporting the site’s
effectiveness and faculty engagement.
In summary, the site usage reports provided quantitative support for the FDF’s
accessibility and showed faculty usage primarily explored in Research Questions 1 and 1.1.
The usage pattern provided an impression that as more content was added in month two and
three coupled with frequent email announcements, faculty awareness and use of the FDF
increased mid-semester. A drop of usage at the end of the semester in December, on the other
hand, was not surprising.
Interviews
Interviews were an important data collection method to allow deeper, richer insights into
understanding the responses collected in the survey (Patton, 2009). The outcomes supported the
triangulation of data and the credibility of the study in relation to the research questions. Here,
the focus was on expanding insights into how faculty used the FDF, if it had exposed them to
new materials, and if they had engaged in thought exchange and/or applied any of the new
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

89

insights gained; for example, insights about pedagogy, creativity and innovation, or universal
design (UD). The outcomes of the six interviews provided qualitative insights into the FDF’s
effectiveness. Even though responses were to specific questions, deducted from the survey
results, inductive analysis of responses revealed a few selected themes that enriched the
quantitative results thus far.
Interviewees
The six interviewees were selected to represent members of each faculty group that had
responded to the survey. Except for one tenure-track interviewee, all others were non-tenure
track faculty, which mirrored the trend of survey respondents. No tenured faculty was available
at the time the interviews had to be scheduled. Table 4.16 represents the selection.
Table 4.16

Faculty Interviewees

Group Faculty Type
Faculty
Label
Years of
Experience

Non-tenure track
Assistant professor (years 1-7) Jack 6
Associate professors (years 8-13) Kate, Tim 10, 12
Full professor (years 13+) Hans 20

Tenure-track Assistant professor (years 1-7) Sally 3.5

Part-time Adjunct professor Carol 2
Note. Names are pseudonyms.

In other words, interviewees were at various stages in their careers and from different
disciplines within the school (accounting, marketing, organizational behavior, communication).
One interviewee (Tim) had conducted a webinar. Lastly, all interviews took place in person in
the respective faculty’s office in January.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

90

Interview Questions
Interview questions were derived deductively from the survey results; particularly,
responses that yielded means above (M=3.3) deserved deeper inquiry, because these showed
support of the hypothesis that school-based online faculty development can be effective. For
example, the survey results had proposed that faculty used the content about instructional design
and learning theories (Table 4.7), which indicated that they were motivated to enhance their
knowledge in pedagogy. Another interesting aspect was that faculty had responded that they
thought the FDF supported exchange among colleagues about topics in teaching and learning,
with webinars providing one way of doing so. Since these aspects are primary indicators of the
FDF’s effectiveness, they deserved deeper investigation.
Interview Outcomes
The interviews supported quantitative results. They showed that faculty engaged with the
FDF and reflected on its contents. Responses also pointed to a need for institutional guidance.
To some extent themes overlapped and informed more than one research question (RQ),
indicated in parenthesis after each heading.
Theme one: Interest to increase knowledge in pedagogy (RQ1.2). At the start of the
interview, participants were asked: “What is your experience in relation to teaching—do you
have a background in pedagogy, and what is your interest in it?”
None of the interviewees claimed a background in pedagogy or any type of formal
teaching training. Instead Hans, for example, relied on “having taught for a number of years”
and Sally came from a family of educators. However, all had participated in some form of
professional development seminar over the years. Two faculty, Hans and Carol, reported having
taught at teaching colleges before, such as a community college. Sally, the tenure-track faculty,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

91

replied to take teaching seriously and elaborated that she thought teaching has a lot to do with
personality, knowledge and enthusiasm about the subject matter; however, the main focus of her
job description was research. She also indicated that teaching had stigma among her peers,
because a focus on teaching might divert from a mandate on research. Nevertheless, all
interviewees conveyed an understanding of importance pedagogy and a curiosity about it. Jack
pointed to finding new approaches to teach today’s youth, while Tim emphasized a need to better
understand how teaching graduate students differs from teaching undergraduates.
In summary, these responses supported the survey results that indicated an increase in
understanding of issues in pedagogy. They showed the faculty interest in learning about
pedagogy that had been established in the literature review (e.g., Gappa, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005).
Theme two: Exposure to content showed interest and motivation (RQ1.2/1.3).
Interviewees were asked, “Did any of the content inspire or motivate you to research and learn
more about pedagogy to understand your current practices or make changes?”
This question addressed exposure to content, its usefulness, and faculty motivation. Five
interviewees reported that they had looked at the information about learning objectives,
instructional design, and learning theories, which further supported a need-based interest in the
subject matter. Jack commented that he had investigated the content about the Millennium
generation. His response also revealed that he explored selected “Tech Guides” featured on the
FDF. All others reported that they enjoyed browsing and discovering content that might be
helpful to their teaching endeavors. The topics they named spanned from materials on ethics to
those on technology. Kate also pointed out that she welcomed the announcements that pop up
through the school’s internal community platform whenever new content is posted. Another
aspect, according to Hans, was that a recent program revision had necessitated a more
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

92

pedagogical development approach, which prompted him to visit the site. Hans had been
looking for materials on the FDF to provide new and junior faculty with teaching tips. Carol, the
part-time faculty, elaborated on her ad-hoc access on a need basis. For example, she said, “I
have a diagnostic that they [my students] have to write (…) but my cases are too long. And I go
to the FDF and there are brief video cases from [name omitted] business school. There are also
ethics cases (…).”
These various trigger points for faculty for accessing the FDF exemplified how their
development needs differ, and that truly, one size does not fit all, further confirming this study’s
hypothesis established in Chapter 1.
In terms of making changes in their teaching, it became clear that implementing change is
a longer process. For example, Kate claimed:
I probably wouldn’t say that I made specific steps to change something in the classroom,
but I find the FDF very useful in sharpening my way of thinking about how I teach and
what I do in the classroom (…) it [the FDF] changed the way I think about teaching.
And Carol posited, “It’s a resource you use on your own motivation (…) if I don’t know
how to do something [in the classroom], I know to go to the FDF to see if there’s something to
help me.” The other interviewees made similar comments.
In summary, this again proposed that the brevity of the FDF’s existence could not
confirm Kirkpatrick’s (2006) Level Four (i.e., outcomes of engagement with FDF not yet
noticeable), but faculty had started to think about their teaching approaches and contemplated
potential changes (i.e., they started transferring content), which corresponds with Kirkpatrick’s
Level Three. Even more importantly, these replies proposed that faculty was actively reflecting
on their practices, which also became evident in replies to the next question.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

93

Theme three: Exposure to content spurred reflection (RQ1.3/1.4). In an attempt to
investigate the FDF content areas further, but also to probe respondents’ knowledge about
universal design (UD), they were asked, “Do you think the FDF can be effective in inspiring
faculty to innovative and creative teaching approaches, such as using technologies, project-based
learning and considering the principles of universal design?”
Even though most could not point their finger to a particular content item in the
categories of creativity, or UD, the tenor was that browsing had made them think about what
they do in their classes, or how they responded to or involved students.
Only Tim had investigated the materials about UD and found information about project-
based learning helpful. All interviewees related to the UD concepts when prompted, but did not
feel they needed a framework for what they understood as a learner-centered approach. This can
be explained with a strong emphasis on learner-centered teaching at the school, which is
necessitated also by an extremely diverse student population (including a high percentage of
international students). Interestingly, Sally, the tenure-track interviewee, reported that she
actually asked students if they knew what type of learner they were. However, she said: “I will
investigate the materials on UD hoping to be able to send students more prescriptive information
about how they should approach a task.”
In summary, responses noted under Theme Two and Three (“Exposure to content showed
interest and motivation”; “Exposure to content spurred reflection”) confirmed that faculty was
actively engaged in reflection through the materials on the FDF. This type of reflection is
fundamental to fostering intrinsic motivation, generative and creative thinking, and double-loop
learning (e.g., Argyris, 1976; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Bensimon, 2005; Smith 2011). In addition,
the engagement with the FDF allowed faculty to learn about issues they might not openly admit
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

94

to or seek out otherwise, but exposure through repeated and continued visits ultimately should
lead to higher creativity in faculty (Hiser, 2008).
Theme four: Engagement nurtured culture and community (RQ1.5). The survey
results pointed to the fact that faculty thought the FDF promoted a culture of learning and a
community building among their peers (Table 4.5). Consequently, participants were asked: “Did
the material on the FDF trigger that you personally engaged in conversations about teaching and
learning with others?”
Interviewees Tim and Hans had participated in one of the webinars, and Tim had been
leading one. He was particularly enthusiastic and said that, following the webinar, he “had more
contact with school faculty outside of my department (…) the common denominator is that we
all share the same students (…) I think it [the FDF] has spurred an interest.” Tim and Hans
connected this participation to continued conversations with peers beyond the webinars, or its
particular content. Hans also observed that the webinar offered an opportunity to meet with
faculty from different departments discussing a content issue, like teaching ethics, and learn
about their perspectives about approaching such topic. Hans said:
I think learned some new things about how other faculty, who had a similar interest in
increasing the emphasis on ethics in the curriculum, how they were going about doing
that in their particular classrooms (…) so for me to encounter or learn about how he
[another faculty] might approach ethics, but not necessarily in the context of a
communications class, was interesting and valuable for me.
Other interviewees commented that they engaged with peers for different reasons. For
example, two were course coordinators, which by the nature of the task leads to discussions
about teaching issues but they now could point faculty to the FDF. Carol, the part-time faculty,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

95

relayed that she frequently engages with her mentor and her part-time colleagues, and that these
conversations had increased because topics she saw on the FDF gave her “something to talk
about.” And interviewee Kate made the following statement:
I think it creates a teaching community, not necessarily a community of colleagues.
Given the fact that we have tenure-track faculty who are primarily doing research and yet
there is a huge pressure on them to teach while in the classroom. I think that this online
presence helps to create the teaching community that is not necessarily a social group but
it’s a more mental unified framework that we might all begin to share.
This beginning of sharing, or in the case Carol, increase in sharing, however, is essential
in creating a common culture and community. Even if conversations happened not because of the
FDF, it seemed that the FDF, in particular the webinars, contributed to building a common
understanding that issues in teaching are important and valuable. In agreement with the
literature, this must strengthen faculty’s self-efficacy as well as it positively impacts attribution
since peers feel to be part of a community that shares these values (Weiner, 2010). Heightened
self-efficacy and arguably positive attributions about their peer community transposes into the
metaphor of the classroom, in which the professor assumes peer support that allows him or her to
experiment and, for example, to become facilitator rather than be the dominating lecturer
(Achinstein & Barrett, 2004). In addition, as Tim reported, insights like seeing how faculty in
disciplines differed from their own approach of a related topic can lead to a better understanding
of multi-layered student perspectives, and to tailoring teaching methods accordingly.
In summary, the responses supported the impression that engagement with the FDF
contributed to a strengthening of a sense of community among faculty. This underscored also
the importance of shared values to support self-efficacy in faculty.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

96

Theme five: Need for time and institutional support (RQ1). The responses so far had
supported the effectiveness of the FDF, showing that broad effects like engagement with content
and culture building were emerging. The participants were also asked, “What would be most
effective in supporting your teaching efforts?”
This question triggered an unanimous response by all interviewees: “More time.”
Generally speaking all interviewees appreciated that the information was available and that they
had “earmarked” (Sally) certain content areas to revisit when they had time. Except for Carol,
all gave a sweeping testimony that goal setting for and engagement in development was severely
hindered by a lack of time. For example, Jack deferred further exploration of pedagogical issues
to “The summer, when I get to things.” Kate responded regretfully: “With our workload, I’m
barely keeping abreast of what I need to do.” While these answers validated the hypothesized
value of the just-in-time aspect that the FDF tried to serve, it was also an indicator of an
imbalance between workload and the job requirement to engage in development. At the same
time, however, Jack and Hans shared that they could probably “make time” if they felt that they
could receive some sort of acknowledgement, or incentive for professional development in
teaching by being able to include this with their annual merit reviews or workload projections.
Jack mentioned, “There is no place to enter such information”; for example, to include
development activities such as workshop participation (no matter if through the FDF, or another
workshop), or simply “time spent” with reading materials for the purpose of developing of new
course materials or teaching approaches. Hans shared the same concern that development in
teaching and instruction was difficult to tie-in with workload projections or the merit review.
This seemed to be an issue on a departmental level, since the other participants did not share
those concerns. However, what the other participants did share was that they thought some sort
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

97

of directive by administration to review and discuss FDF materials would support and increase
their use of the site. Kate, for example, commented:
I had a comparison between, uh, the FDF and the [school internal departmental
community page (SICP)]. When we started putting documents on the [SICP], which was
probably four or five years ago, I absolutely rejected this system. I just would not go
there. And I would come to our faculty meeting with no faculty agenda because it
happened to be posted on [it], and I just didn’t want to both and go there and print it
myself. And, I have a very different attitude now, primarily because my hand was
twisted, to the point—when additional documents that I needed began being posted on
the [SICP], so the traffic to the [SICP] was increased through external [leadership]
pressures.
This was an indication that even though school leadership supported the FDF and
encouraged engagement with professional development in teaching, faculty was looking for an
incentive or reward for doing so.
In summary, while a sense of community might strengthen among faculty, these
responses indicated disconnect between leadership and faculty goals. As delineated in the
literature review, these responses reflected a misalignment of institutional and personal goals that
Gappa (2008) and Kaya et al. (2005), among others, investigated and found to be a main reason
for lack of faculty engagement.
Theme six: Need for development guides (RQ1, 1.3). Finally, respondents were asked,
“How could the FDF be improved?” implying also to solicit comments answering to “What does
not work?” Respondents Tim, Kate, Sally, and Carol commented again that they liked the site
and were not sure what potential improvements could be. Respondents Jack and Kate suggested
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

98

including an index of topics and materials, as well as a guideline for different level faculty to set
goals for themselves. For example, a junior faculty should “start with the learning objectives and
review syllabi” (Jack), and an advanced faculty should explore “a guide to a successful
promotion” (Kate). Kate also proposed to establish a self-assessment tool for faculty to be able
to identify which content might be valuable for them based on their prior knowledge. Lastly,
Sally suggested, similar to the desire for an index, that the FDF should be searchable—especially,
as its depository of content grows. This desire for indexing or a search function again indicated
that while some faculty liked browsing, others do not have time or the desire to do so and have a
concrete need for specific content. All participants mentioned the webinars again indicating that
they would like more topics covered.
In summary, the interview outcomes further substantiated the survey results and the site
usage reports. They provided an impression that faculty thought the FDF was an effective and
accessible tool for their development needs. It had exposed them to various issues in teaching
and learning, as well as it contributed to their sense of a growing community of teaching and
learning. However, despite their personal engagement with the platform, they also pointed to a
potential impediment for using the FDF due to faculty’s lack of time and institutional incentive
to engage in professional development, or lack of articulated learning outcomes for faculty (e.g.,
Hiser, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
Observations: Faculty and Use of FDF Instructional Technology
This section briefly describes and interprets observations about faculty’s use of the site’s
technology throughout the semester allowing more insights into RQ1.4 that queried, among
others, faculty’s exposure to and use of instructional technology. In addition to the just-in-time
argument, and the fact that the school did not have a site dedicated to teaching and learning prior
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

99

to the FDF, it also serves to inform faculty about instructional technologies—however, in hopes,
too, that using the FDF itself would provide an opportunity for faculty to try web-based
learning—in other words, modeling the principles of UD and facilitating accessibility with the
help of technology.
Several issues need to be highlighted in regards to faculty participation in webinars and
the discussion board and in terms of limitations of the FDF site technology.
Webinars
The concept of webinars was comparatively successful. Even though the participation
number was relatively small for each event--between four and nine participants—it should be
noted that a higher number (12 to 14) of faculty RSVP’d to the seminars but did not sign-in at
the time of the session. Participants communicated in various ways that they liked the webinars
(via brief webinar user follow-up surveys, in person and via email to the organizer, on the
study’s survey, in the interviews, through emails regretting not being able to participate and
inquiring about recordings). For example, the brief follow-up surveys to the three webinars
during the study-period asked faculty participants on a scale from one (not valuable) to five (very
valuable): “How valuable was this webinar for you?” Faculty participants replied with valuable
or very valuable in all cases. However, since the number of participants was relatively small,
such numerical assessment appeared non-relevant. A more significant indicator for success were
the short answers to the question, “What would you like to know more about in relation to
today’s topic?” Here participants revealed that they wanted to know more, or suggested different
approaches for the same topic. They also indicated a desire for more webinars on different
topics when prompted for future topics. The consensus was that the web events were a great way
to interact with peers, and faculty were asking when the next webinar would be scheduled.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

100

None of the webinar presenters had conducted such a session before. Not only did they
provide modeling for peers, but they also participated in experiential online learning, even
though they might not have labeled it as such. Each presenter met with the organizer for a
virtual test-run on the webinar platform. The same was true for some webinar participants.
Many were not sure if they could handle the technology and contacted the organizer prior to the
session for guidance. One of the interviewees (Tim), who had led a webinar, commented on the
technology:
I wouldn’t ‘ve been able to pull it off on my own. And I, and I found that, it just—from
my perspective, a new-to-me environment of a webinar, that it was much easier for me to
try to respond to participant comments and questions that were being raised by virtue of
the fact that you [the organizer] were here to take me through it. And I just, uh, got the
impression that, even for a sophisticated user, having two hosts there, I think lends a lot
of support and a lot of confidence to either of them, uh, and so I just thought that that the
clinging effect of working together was a very effective way to pull it off (…) I was just
struck by the complexity that the multitasking in which you had to engage in order to
keep it in real time, in order to keep it a functioning and alive environment.
However, the participants in these events realized quickly how easy to use these
technologies are and enjoyed the conversations. The fact that they were conducted on a school
basis, arguably also provided a safe environment, where glitches were acceptable. During the
first webinar, for example, the sound failed for about two minutes. The presenter did not notice
that participants were typing in the chat box, “I can’t hear.” This disruption, however, was met
with patience and the conversation continued when the sound was fixed.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

101

In addition, and in alignment with UD principles, recordings of webinars are available via
the FDF. Lastly, as the interview outcomes confirmed, these webinars showed potential also to
support a sense of community beyond a faculty’s home department, and potentially encourage
faculty to use this type of technology for teaching purposes.
Discussion Boards
The site featured discussion boards that invited faculty to share their thoughts on
common topics like “student cheating” or “how to get students to read,” and an open forum that
should have served for anyone to share thoughts, ideas, articles of interest, and so forth.
However, despite periodic invitations to participate, faculty did not engage in these discussions.
That the discussion board still received hits can be explained with faculty reading the initial
entries of one or two persons, or so-called lurking (Preece, Nonnecke, & Andrews, 2003;
Schneider, von Krogh, & Jäger, 2012). Presumably, faculty is reluctant to expose their opinion
in an environment where, after all, their contribution is published, permanent, and peer reviewed
(whereas an oral comment in a webinar appears fleeting), or, possibly, topics were not of concern.
Research confirmed not only that about 90% of online community members are passive, but also
suggested a variety of reasons for non-participation in discussion boards, among them the desire
to remain anonymous, no requirement to post, and the fact that for many browsing suffices
(Preece et al, 2003; Schneider et al., 2012). Another reason for the lack of participation might be
that the discussion board was not moderated and asynchronous, and no immediate response to a
posting could be expected (Carbonaro, King, Taylor, Satzinger, Snart, & Drummond, 2008).
In summary, the webinars provided a small step in engaging faculty, who had reportedly
not participated in webinars before, in experiencing instructional technology. The discussion
boards, however, did not succeed in the first months of the FDF’s existence.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

102

Summary
This chapter delivered the results of this mixed-methods study. They suggested a
positive outcome to the research questions. In other words, faculty accepted the school-based
online platform for professional development in terms of teaching and learning; it exposed them
to content about pedagogy and multiple means of instruction, and engaged faculty in thought
exchange with their peers to some extent. Chapter 5 will summarize the findings, discuss its
limitations, address how results can further inform faculty development, and, lastly, provide
thoughts on how this study can inform future research.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

103

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the findings of the study, identifies its limitations, suggests
implications for practice, and points to future research in faculty development. Triangulation
supported construct, content and concurrent validity, and findings agree with and expand on
faculty development issues that were established in the problem statement and literature review.
The interpretation of results will inform continued expansion of the site as well as research about
faculty development.
This study hypothesized that faculty in a business school will be effectively served by an
Internet-based professional development platform that is customized to their needs, involves
their learning about and use of technology, and provides a creative space for knowledge and idea
exchange with peers as well as experts on demand or just-in-time—in other words, when faculty
need it or have time to engage in it, and not only when development opportunities are offered
through the university, their school, or unit. The purpose of this study was to explore the extent
to which an online forum for faculty’s professional development (FDF) can succeed as an
effective and acceptable tool to support faculty efforts in terms of teaching and learning and
provoke them to change or further develop their curricula in creative and innovative ways—
ultimately, to better serve the students in today’s rapidly changing learning environments.
Accordingly, the research questions aimed to assess if a web-based development platform
provides a universally accessible and acceptable source that effectively motivates faculty to
engage in professional development. In detail, the study queried:
1. To what extent did the web-based development platform provide a universally
accessible and acceptable source that effectively motivated faculty to engage in
professional development?
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

104

1.1 To what extent did faculty use the web-based platform?
1.2 To what extent did faculty indicate interest in further learning about issues in
instruction?
1.3 To what extent is the web-based development platform effective in exposing faculty
to multiple means of learning and instruction, such as universal design in learning and
instruction?
1.4 To what extent is the web-based platform effective in augmenting or fostering faculty
creativity for curriculum innovation, such as project-based learning or using
instructional technology?
1.5 To what extent did faculty engage in thought exchange with peers on this platform?

Findings
The study confirms the hypothesis that school-based online faculty development is
effective in motivating faculty to engage in professional development. The findings suggest that
faculty welcomes the opportunity for online professional development. They show interest in
exploring learning theories, creativity, innovation and equitable instruction approaches, and
related applicable frameworks. This agrees with findings of other researchers, such as Sorcinelli
et al. (2006), that the advantages of deeper knowledge in pedagogy are receiving increased
acknowledgment from faculty while staying abreast of developments in their disciplines. Further,
the results also pointed to a community building effect of the FDF among faculty. However, at
the same time a need for individualized development plans and stronger institutional support
emerged.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

105

FDF Builds Faculty Motivation and Community
The main research question was to investigate if the FDF, or online faculty development,
provides an accessible and acceptable source that effectively motivates faculty to engage in
professional development. One of the prerequisites for engagement and acceptance is realizing
the value of doing so, and the establishment of the site alone supported the idea that teaching is
respected at the school. The high means of faculty’s overall assessments of the FDF suggest that
the online platform is recognized as a valuable source and forum to learn about pedagogical
issues. It therefore validates the importance of learning about pedagogy and makes the FDF a
positive symbol that learning about instruction has value. According to Vygotsky’s (1934/1987)
social-cultural theories, individuals interpret the sign and symbols of their environment and adapt
to it. In fact, the study’s results further pointed to a community building effect of the FDF. Just
as the overall value that faculty attributed to the FDF, this, too, be interpreted as a sign of
acknowledging the value of pedagogical knowledge. In that sense, the study confirmed that the
FDF contributes to building what researchers labeled a “healthy” culture (Schein, 2004; Sharma
& Jyoti, 2009). This supports the impression that the use of the site leads to positive attribution
in faculty, a necessary element to motivation (Weiner, 2010). Further, in agreement with Teeter
et al. (2011) these results suggest that learning communities for faculty, such as the fledgling
FDF community, are of high value. Participants not only expand their connections beyond their
immediate circles but also demonstrate an increased responsibility to discuss issues of teaching
and learning with colleagues.
In addition, the FDF triggered thought exchange among peers. This supports community
building and stabilizes faculty’s self-efficacy because they feel validated in their engagement and
actions (Clark & Estes 2008; Kaya et al., 2005; Klassen & Chiu, 2010; Schein, 2004). Even in
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

106

the absence of clear institutional or departmental development goals, and even given the fact that
goal setting for faculty yielded a not sure response, one might argue that exchange with peers
causes faculty to formulate or explain their goals. In turn, this stabilizes faculty’s internal locus
of control and, consequently, they might seek to clarify departmental and institutional goals to
see how they align or need to be changed (Weiner, 2010). The alignment of these goals is an
essential element in faculty motivation and performance (Gappa, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005).
Ultimately, clarifying goals also means the willingness to take charge, a first step to becoming
transformational leaders (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
In summary, the FDF presents an acceptable platform for faculty learning. It motivates
faculty to engage in professional development but needs a stronger institutional framework to
increase faculty buy-in and effectiveness.
FDF Supports Faculty Reflection
One of the most notable results of this study is a clear indication that faculty who used
the FDF are more consciously engaging in reflection about issues in pedagogy such as learning
theories or multiple means of instruction. Even if this reflection does not result in immediate
action, reflection is the primary prerequisite for faculty’s path of self-discovery (Davis, 2003;
Schön, 1987). For example, the above average mean (M = 3.64) in the response to the survey
question if their knowledge of teaching and learning methods and processes had increased
implies that learning about those issues cannot happen without reflecting on prior knowledge in
these areas. The benefit of this type of self-regulated learning is that mental effort happens
within the individual’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), thus, preventing cognitive
overload and leaving mental room for creativity (Johnson & Sinclair, 2006; Mayer 2011;
Vygotsky, 1934/1987). Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) concept of the ZPD offers a theoretical
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

107

construct for the learning processes of all ages. Particularly in regards to the faculty learner,
Tinsley and Lebak (2009) expanded on Vygotsky’s construct (and other theoretical frameworks)
establishing the concept of the zone of reflective capacity. In application this means that faculty
upon reading and reviewing content about pedagogy, will quickly be able to assess content value
in relation to their prior knowledge. Not only will faculty know to extract the information they
need to expand their knowledge, but also to which degree—for example, reading about multiple
means of instruction on the FDF faculty might decide that it suffices for them to understand the
general concepts for their current instructional application needs. Making this judgment shows
their ability to self-regulate the degree of learning, avoiding cognitive overload of studying
concepts in great detail at this time. Instead faculty can utilize their working memory to match
the general concepts with course specific content and learning activities for students—which is a
creative process. Reflecting on their application experience, and if faculty realizes they have a
knowledge gap in the concepts they studied, faculty may decide to return to particulars of those
pedagogical concepts and explore them more in depth.
Ultimately, this type of reflection contributes to building inner strength and motivates
faculty to grow professionally (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Tinsley & Lebak, 2009). At the same
time, this triggers generative and creative thoughts, and with it double-loop learning that sets
faculty on a path to risk tolerance and adapting or altering their instructional methods (Argyris,
1976; Bensimon, 2005; Moore et al., 2007; Smith, 2011). The study results indicate that
participants were planning to change their instructional methods and even if they were not sure
yet to which degree they would implement change, or how they would do it, they began thinking
about it.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

108

In summary, the study confirms that the FDF was successful in exposing faculty to
learning about multiple means of instruction on their own time. Most importantly, faculty
reflected on these issues as well as on their own practice, and, consequently, on how they best
reach their students. The results of the study, however, did not support that faculty had indeed
started to implement any changes in their classes. This is not surprising since developing new
approaches or content does not happen ad hoc, but needs adequate time.
FDF Supports Faculty Learning About Multiple Means of Instruction, Creativity and
Innovation
Results showed that faculty visited the FDF content page about instructional design the
most, and faculty indicated planning to include multiple means of instruction. Browsing these
content areas and expanding on their knowledge promotes lateral thinking in faculty, a
fundamental criteria for creative and innovative thought (Boden, 2011; Powell, 2007; Sobehardt,
2011). One interviewee made a point that the exchange during the webinar exposed him to
multiple means of instruction just by listening to and discussing other faculty’s teaching
approaches. This agrees with the proposals of Bruton (2010), Csikszentmilhalyi (2006), and
others that this type of problem-based or collaborative learning is generative, producing new
knowledge in the learner. This ties back to the community building aspect of the FDF and
suggests that continued exchange is necessary to find ways to translate generative thought and
innovation into the classroom environment. In fact, faculty experiencing caring relationships
among themselves will positively influence their relationships with the students (Morrison &
Johnston, 2003). Not only will this prepare faculty to more readily realize students’ different
learning styles, but will also aid faculty to be more self-efficacious in applying innovative
approaches to provide stimulating learning environments that will push students into expanding
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

109

beyond their current knowledge levels. Thus, the study results suggest that the FDF provides
elements of Csikszentmilhalyi and Nakamura’s (2006) systems approach of teaching strategy
that include the teacher, the student, the environment and the field of study.
In summary, the results suggest that faculty expanded their knowledge about multiple
means of instruction, creativity and innovation in relation to teaching. However, the study could
not confirm any concrete translation of those concepts into action. Course development and
strategic changes in teaching take time. Even if faculty conceived new teaching approaches, they
did not have enough time to implement them.
FDF Usage Confirms Current Problems in Faculty Development
To understand the findings, it is necessary to relate them to the larger context in which
faculty at institutions of higher education operate. Overall, tis study’s findings are indicative of
the current professional profile for faculty within the school, or, for that matter, within the
environment of higher education where institutional goals and faculty objectives often are not
aligned. This is not a new problem. For example, Bensimon and O’Neil (1998) and Sorcinelli et
al. (2007) confirmed conflicts between individual and school needs, suggesting that the lack of
support leads to faculty’s reluctance of engagement. Interview results in this study indicated that
faculty would use the FDF more if their engagement with it—or, for that matter, professional
development—could be recorded in some form in annual merit reviews or integrated with
workload projections more explicitly. A number of researchers have alerted to the need of not
only publishing school or institutional goals but also, when setting goals, considering how
faculty will be able to fulfill them, how goals can be translated for the individual faculty, and
how achievement can be rewarded (e.g., Gappa, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005). In addition, Hirst, van
Knippenberg and Zhou (2009) proposed a strong correlation of performance goal orientation and
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

110

creativity in employees, where a lack of attainable individual goals is counterproductive to
generating ideas and creative problem solving.
In other words, it will be helpful if development goals were clarified for faculty and how
they could work towards them with the help of the FDF. While the FDF is a medium that shows
the school’s effort to foster faculty development, it has so far neither been tied to a recognition
system for participation nor to a goal setting tool for faculty. Discussions about the FDF’s future
expansion, thus, should include these considerations.
In accordance with other researchers, workload issues limited faculty engagement with
the FDF (e.g., Ambrose, Huston, & Norman, 2005; Burke & Rau, 2005; Gappa, 2008; Kezar &
Lester, 2009; Sorcinelli, 2007). This was not only reported in the interviews but also in the
relatively low number of FDF users and survey responses, which are indicative of time issues.
Survey responses of Non-FDF users named time as the number one reason for not visiting the
site. Another indicator was that many more faculty RSVP’d to webinars, but only few ended up
participating. Some emailed the organizer that they regretted not having time, were teaching, or
were just beginning to be aware of the FDF and would participate next time.
While these results confirmed a lack of time, on the positive side, the fact that faculty did
respond also supports that they are interested and understand they need development in
pedagogy—especially in light of the rapid development of new instructional technologies
(Postareff et al., 2006). The webinar presenters, for example, were curious and excited to find
out how to present in an online environment and felt they could do so in a safe environment.
They might now be encouraged to use this technology with their students.
Despite reported interest in pedagogy, striking a balance between which area of
development to focus on remains difficult and, given pressures to stay abreast in their disciplines,
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

111

faculty mostly allocates the time to expanding their domain knowledge. Looking at approaches
on how to teach is still secondary (Freund et al., 1990). In other words, there is little debate that
the scholarship of teaching should be equitable with the role of research (Sorcinelli et al., 2006),
but translating this developing mindset into active choice, mental effort and persistent
engagement—or motivating faculty in this regard—remains a challenge that necessitates multi-
level efforts on part of the school’s leadership. In the worst-case scenario, or with no further
support from the administration, this might lead to negative attribution, to feelings of resignation
and, according to Bourdieu (1973), to faculty not being able to change their habitus or live up to
demands of the 21
st
century educational environment. However, considering the benefits of
reflection mentioned in the literature review and reported above, faculty’s continued engagement
should eventually foster transformational leadership abilities (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004; Moore
et al., 2007; Tinsley & Lebak, 2009).
In summary, the results of the study showed that online faculty development provides
access and exposure to engage in learning about instructional methods, such as UD, and many
other topics concerning pedagogy or teaching approaches. It supports a community of teaching
and learning and gives faculty an opportunity for thought exchange in the quasi-anonymity of the
online environment. It offers opportunity for those seeking leadership and community, or,
conversely, allows for autonomy in choosing what content to access, when and how to use it
(Bensimon & O’Neil, 1998; Hiser, 2008).
Limitations
Even though the results above are encouraging, several issues in regards to sample size as
they relate to FDF usage barriers limit the study. For that matter, and to help explain these
limitations, characteristics of the product (FDF) and faculty usage cannot be decoupled. To
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

112

some extent, limitations have to do to with the novelty of the site and the brevity of its existence.
Also, the fact that the researcher conceptualized and started the site single-handedly, but not
collaboratively, needs to be considered. In addition, technical issues impacted faculty trying to
access and use the FDF, or at least were not conducive to quickly growing the number of users.
Accordingly, the points below provide insights into reasons for these limitations and their effects
on the study.
First, faculty lacks awareness of FDF. The FDF was not an established development site
that faculty was familiar with, but its launch coincided with the study’s start. Even though the
school had promoted a higher emphasis on teaching and learning as part of their strategic
mission and supported the establishment of the FDF, faculty was not prepared for this new
product or aware why they should use it. For example, faculty was not surveyed prior to the
study or launch of the FDF about what their development needs are. A survey might have let
them investigate the site to see if their demands were answered. Rather, the need for the just-in-
time school-based online development site was established in the purpose and literature review
of the study, which provided the framework for actually building the FDF. The time-span since
the site’s launch served as a type of user acceptance or beta testing to determine how to improve
the site. Arguably, four-months is not long enough for the site or similar products to show their
full potential (Davis & Venkatesh, 2004). In addition, desired or conceived multimedia
opportunities through the site were limited to webinars, discussion boards, links to videos and
other websites. The FDF did not include, for example, some type of online learning game or a
“shopping cart” for faculty that would let them pick content according to a development plan.
Second, faculty’s FDF use was limited due to a lack of collaborators—and collaboration
is undoubtedly an important element to foster active participation. For example, Zeff (2007) and
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

113

Sorcinelli et al. (2006) confirmed that faculty development programs will be more successful if
they are developed collaboratively soliciting faculty input, and if programs are tied to outcomes.
The author of this study created the FDF single-handedly (with the help of two technical support
staff), assuming the role of a subject matter expert and populating the site with a variety of
content such as materials in learning and instruction, creative and critical thinking, and teaching
with technology. Foundational intentions of the site’s purpose, such as offering an open
discussion forum to discuss development needs or to share ideas about methods of instructions
were initiated but need more time to develop to draw participation. This means, that even though
a participatory approach was promoted and faculty was repeatedly encouraged to contribute to
discussion boards, source material, or host webinars of their topic choice, few did. Most likely,
this is due to a lack of faculty time for development or reluctance to spend time with no tangible
reward such as service credit. In addition, research has suggested that online communities have
about 90% passive users, or lurkers (Schneider et al., 2012). However, a higher number of site
visitors or contributors will promote the site through word-of-mouth. In other words,
collaboration during site creation and throughout the study period theoretically could have
yielded a higher percentage of faculty site users and drawn a larger number of survey
participants, allowing deeper insights into its effectiveness.
Third, FDF access is not user friendly and presents a challenge for many faculty. As
mentioned earlier, the site is embedded into an internal school faculty portal that provides
information about many different administrative issues, allows users to directly access library
databases, view their email, see their files on the school server, and more. One section here is
dedicated to “Community” under which the FDF is located. Faculty has to log in to the portal
first, but the community sites then require further authentication. In short, users have to go
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

114

through several clicks to actually access the FDF. In addition, many faculty have two user
names (one for the university and one for the school) and often were not sure which one to use,
even though they were prompted to use their school username. Despite the fact that each
announcement included instructions and even hyperlinks to log in, a number of faculty reported
(mostly via email to the site organizer) having difficulty doing so. In faculty meetings, faculty
voiced their frustration with not remembering under which link they would find the site, having
to click too many times, and having problems logging in.
Ajjan and Hartshorne (2008) proposed that ease of use influences faculty attitude about
technology. Internet users today expect ease of access, usefulness and immediacy, or plug and
play. Considering time restrictions of faculty, and for some arguably a low self-efficacy in use
of technology, if access attempts remain unsuccessful or are complicated interest drops and can
lead to performance avoidance, meaning no additional log-in attempts will me made (Hirst et al.,
2009). In other words, the three contributing elements to motivation (active choice, persistence,
mental effort) could not be satisfied. Faculty wanting to log in did so out of active choice;
however, persistence and mental effort were stifled. Except for the few who sought help with
log-in, the actual number of failed log-in attempts could not be determined due to the
researcher’s level of access to this type of data and the fact that it was not included in site-usage
reports. The log-in problem continued throughout the semester even though in mid-semester a
direct link from the school’s website as well as from the school’s mentoring site were added.
Either option reduces the number of clicks for faculty; however, they still have to use their log-in
credentials.
Fourth, navigating the FDF differs from common use websites. Browsing the FDF is
non-intuitive, which can cause user frustration, and prevent them from returning to the site. The
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

115

FDF has a basic framework and features three columns of information or links to content areas.
Once in a content area, faculty needs to use the browser’s Back button in order to continue to
stay on the FDF, or get to its homepage. If they close the content they are viewing, their FDF
session automatically ends. This means that to continue browsing faculty has to log in again.
Due to software limitations, it is not possible to include a Home or even a Back button on the site
itself. However, Internet users are familiar with such buttons or symbols; in fact, most users
have mental models associated with them and their locations—a Home button, for example, is
usually in the left upper corner of a site (Roth, Tuch, Mekler, Bargas-Avila, & Opwis, 2013).
Thus, trying to get back to the home page but being logged out instead is an impediment, can
cause frustration in users, and prevents them from returning to the site. Likewise, as three
interviewees in this study noticed, the site does not have a search function to help identify
specific content.
In summary, sample size due to infancy of the product, lack of opportunity for a long-
term pre-launch promotional phase, and technical issues limited the study—arguably, to faculty
who are engaged and interested in development and to those who realize the opportunities of
technology. On the other hand, this study of online faculty development via the FDF can be
categorized as user acceptance testing and is a valid pathway to discover faculty’s perspectives
of their needs (Davis & Venkatesh, 2004). The fact that results showed that FDF users embraced
the opportunities the online forum offers indicates that its concept and effects are aligned with
faculty needs. Further, as faculty gets accustomed to the FDF log-in patterns and navigation, the
site’s content usefulness will counter-balance log-in and navigation issues until the platform
software is upgraded to a more user-friendly version. In addition, in the future the FDF will be
hosted as a collaborative faculty project with the support of school leadership.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

116

Implications for Practice
Many researchers have successfully made arguments for online faculty development (e.g.,
Diaz et al, 2007; Teeter et al., 2011; Wlodkowski, 2003; Zeff, 2007). Across the board the
importance of equating the scholarship of teaching with the scholarship of research has been
recognized—and takes on a heightened urgency as faculty increasingly realizes the need to
employ instructional technologies (e.g., Sorcinelli et al., 2006; Postareff et al., 2006). Because
time-constraints are not likely to disappear in the university work environment but become more
fluid or ubiquitous with increased online-learning, faculty must become more agile and mobile in
their access to support materials for their professional needs. This further validates the just-in-
time online approach and also promotes experiential faculty learning situations that mirror those
of the students (Diaz et al., 2009; Kukulska-Hulme, 2012).
While web-based faculty development is a preferred medium for a variety of reasons
established in this study, it remains difficult if not fruitless to establish a habit of participation in
faculty with online development in isolation. This means that online development should not be
the only option but rather be in concert with mentoring, physical workshops and so on. However,
in light of mobile and web-technologies that are new integral parts of the classroom, online
faculty development, in particular, should be framed by an institutional vision that clearly
supports learning about pedagogy utilizing 21
st
century technologies. This type of development
offers multiple means of engagement and learning but it also allows for a simpler, more direct
way to ensure accountability for engaging with professional development.
Accordingly, based on this study, the recommendation for individual schools at
institutions of higher education is to collaboratively expand existing faculty development
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

117

initiatives, or to establish new ones, with a focus on online options. To approach these tasks, the
following criteria can serve as guide:
• Determine what faculty perceives as development needs.
• Analyze how faculty development needs and school goals align.
• Establish clear expectations and goals for engagement with issues of learning and
instruction (or make existing ones more transparent and accessible).
• Create or clarify development guidelines for faculty at different levels to reach set
expectations (or make existing ones more transparent and accessible).
• Tie participation in and engagement with professional development in terms of pedagogy
to workload projections and annual merit reviews (e.g., establish a point or badge
accountability system aligned with a goal plan that translates into the merit review).
• Establish thematic learning communities in support of faculty.
• Initiate faculty collaboration and leadership for online professional development.
• Involve instructional designers to support a resource depository with interactive and
experiential multimedia content.
• Conduct qualitative and quantitative data collection and research, such as follow-up
surveys or an analysis of faculty teaching evaluations, in order to continuously assess
site’s effectiveness and to make necessary adjustments.
These criteria are prerequisites for faculty, given their work-pressures, to engage beyond
what is necessary to fulfill their job duties. This means that institutions must make a strong
effort to align program, departmental, course and faculty development goals to form generative
and synergetic learning environments (Gappa, 2008; Kaya et al., 2005). As this study suggests,
faculty need support mechanisms as well as clear guidelines and incentives so that they utilize
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

118

online development. For example, the online platform is the ideal medium to publish interactive
faculty guidelines translated from previous paper-based documents. Such multimedia or
interactive content also exposes faculty to using instructional technology. Consequently, they
develop a better understanding and level of comfort of media and its use for instruction. In
addition, technology staff, instructional designers, and faculty can collaborate to design
multimedia features and to ensure up-to-date cutting-edge content to meet the needs of faculty’s
diverse learning styles.
One way of approaching these tasks from an institutional perspective is to use the UD
framework as a guiding principle. The advantages of using the UD framework are to aid
institutions in focusing their goals in pursuit of a common goal: to generate the best education for
their populations. For faculty development, Burgstahler’s (2001) original seven UD principles
(inclusiveness, physical access, delivery methods, information access, interaction, feedback,
demonstration of knowledge) should be supported by McGuire et al.’s (2006) additional
principles that underscore the importance of a learning community and the instructional climate
to promote a healthy culture. More than 30 years ago, Bandura (1978) suggested that culture is
an essential element of the reciprocal relationship between the individual, their behavior and
their environment. In other words, school initiatives must aim to create an open atmosphere
where faculty feels supported to take creative and innovative risks in instructional approaches,
and to narrow the gaps between teaching and research faculty and administration.
Future research is necessary to explore if, how, and to what extent institutions and their
schools adopt online faculty development under consideration of above-mentioned criteria and
the principles of the UD framework. Further, it will be interesting to see if fostering
development through such media will affect change in faculty’s approach to teaching and will
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

119

increase their creativity and innovation in that regard. In addition, research into the degree of
effort and collaboration between school leadership and faculty when creating and growing such
professional development sites should provide insight into if and how the level of engagement
will support and augment the success of online faculty learning communities.
Conclusions
This case study explores the effectiveness of online faculty development and can inform
efforts at other schools inside or outside the institution about approaches to support faculty’s
professional growth. The FDF was constructed under consideration of the principles of UD,
specifically relying on Wlodkowski’s (2003) suggestions how to translate these into application
for faculty. Application steps include, for example: (1) inviting faculty respectfully to participate
(inclusion), (2) making sure that webinar and all other content is relevant to participants and
ideally presented or modeled by peers to nurture interest, and (3) offering or facilitating technical
support. In addition, the FDF aims to present content and motivate faculty involvement
according to selected elements of relevant instructional design methods that Merrill (2002)
labeled the Five Star System and which Clark et al. (2008) applied to instructional methods.
This means that the concept of and content on the FDF builds upon the demonstration,
application, task-centered, activation, and integration principles. Content items, for example,
feature brief descriptions labeled “What is this?” to allow the user to set the content into context.
The researcher made an effort to source a variety of comprehensive materials on the FDF that
offer clear and complete examples of how to translate theories, instructional design methods, and
much more to allow faculty to discover content that builds upon their level of prior knowledge.
This sourcing is in accordance with Clark et al.’s instructional methods that focus on the
deconstruction of content or tasks. However, faculty’s application of new knowledge or the
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

120

completion of part-tasks on their way to making changes in their classrooms is left to them.
Ideally, they return to the FDF for further support or thought exchange with peers.
Content success and effectiveness was confirmed on the level of faculty having accessed
and reflected on materials such as instructional methods, issues of creativity and innovation in
education, and the importance of creative thinking. The study exemplifies that exposure to these
issues confirms the value of engagement with pedagogy for faculty and motivates them to further
explore those issues. In addition, this study substantiates advantages of just-in-time online
faculty development because faculty have autonomy in choosing when to access it when they are
motivated to do so.
The limitations of this study were prohibitive, however, in attesting to if transfer of
knowledge into action has taken place. In other words, it was not possible to assess all aspects of
Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation system and confirm if the FDF has contributed to
faculty’s application of creative and innovative instructional methods in the classroom. Future
studies can provide insights in this regard.
The study also confirms that external or school-based initiatives that pertain to goal
setting and alignment and to a heightened awareness for faculty development are necessary. The
school at the study site is working to further expanding the FDF as a result of the findings and
recommendations of this study. This expansion must include clarification, support, and
alignment of long and short-term goals for the school and its individual faculty. This will foster
faculty’s active involvement in learning about pedagogy, including utilizing or experimenting
with instructional technologies that translate into both physical and virtual classrooms.
In summary, continued development will deepen faculty’s generative thinking, augment
their ability to transfer knowledge, and stabilize their self-efficacy. Online development forums
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

121

such as the FDF contribute to the wellbeing of faculty, support their active involvement in their
community and, ultimately, will empower them to provoke change. This engagement will reflect
in their teaching practices and gives faculty the background and flexibility to inspire diverse
student populations to embark on a path of guided discovery, experience knowledge generation,
and prepare to address the challenges of our age in innovative, creative and equitable ways.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

122

References
Achinstein, B. & Barrett, A. (2004). (Re)framing classroom contexts: How new teachers and
mentors view diverse learners and challenges of practice. Teachers College Record,
106(4), 716-746.
Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt web 2.0
technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71-
80. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002
Ambrose, S., Huston, T., & Norman, M. (2005). A qualitative method for assessing faculty
satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 803-830. doi:10.1007/Jack1162-004-
6226-6
Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl (Eds.) (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International student persistence: Integration or cultural identity?
Journal of College Student Retention, Vol. 8 (1). 57-81.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ameny-Dixon, G. M. (2004). Why multicultural education is more important in higher education
now than ever: A global perspective. International Journal of Scholarly Academic
Intellectual Diversity, 8(1), n.p. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalforum.com/dixon.htm.
Arad, R., & Erez, M. (1986). Participative goal-setting: Social, motivational, and cognitive
factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 591-597. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.71.4.591
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

123

Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363-375. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/2391848
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33(4),
344-358. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.33.4.344
Bensimon, E. M., O’Neil, H.F., Jr. (1998). Collaborative effort to measure faculty work.
Liberal Education, 84(4), n.p. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99-111.
doi:10.1002/he.190
Boden, M. A. (2001). Creativity and knowledge. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, and M. Leibling (Eds.),
Creativity in education (pp. 95-103). London and New York: Continuum.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations (4
th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). The three forms of theoretical knowledge. Social Science Information, Feb.
1973(12), 53-80. Retrieved from http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/12/1/53.citation. doi:
10.1177/053901847301200103
Bremer, C. D. (2004). Universal design in secondary and postsecondary education. In V.
Gaylord, D. R. Johnson, C. A. Lehr, C. D. Bremer, S. Hasazi (Eds.), Impact: Feature
Issue on Achieving Secondary Education and Transition for Students with Disabilities,
16(3), n.p. Minneapolis, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis. Retrieved from http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/163
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

124

Bruton, D. (2011). Learning creativity and design for innovation. International Journal of
Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 321-333.
Burgstahler, S. (2001). A collaborative model promotes career success for students with
disabilities: How DO-IT does it. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16(3-4), 209-216.
Burke, L.A., & Rau, B. (2007). Managing chronic excuse-making behaviors of faculty.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(3), 415-428.
Camblin, L. D., Jr., & Steger, J. A. (2000). Rethinking faculty development. Higher Education,
39(1), 1-18. doi:10.1023/A:1003827925543
Carbonaro, M., King, S., Taylor, E., Satzinger, F., Snart, F., & Drummond, J. (2008).
Integration of e-learning technologies in an interprofessional health science course.
Medical Teacher, 30, 25-33. doi: 10.1080/01421590701753450
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning Research Into Results. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Clark, R. E., Yates, K., Early, S. & Moulton, K. (2010). An Analysis of the Failure of Electronic
Media and Discovery-based learning: Evidence for the performance benefits of Guided
Training Methods. In K.H. Silber, & R. Foshay, R. (Eds.). Handbook of Training and
Improving Workplace Performance, Volume I: Instructional Design and Training
Delivery. Somerset, NJ: Wiley.
Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2008). Cognitive task
analysis. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merriënboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.).
Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (3
rd
ed., pp.
577-593). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

125

Cone, D. & Foster, S. L. (2006). Dissertations from start to finish: Psychology and related field
(3
rd
ed.). American Psychological Association.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches.
Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of
adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals
and cognitions, 3, 45–71. New York: Academic Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2006). Developing creativity. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, and J.
Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum
(pp. xviii-xx). London, New York: Routledge.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36 (6), 318–334. doi:
10.3102/0013189X07308253
Davis, F.D., & Venkatesh, V. (2004). Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new
information systems: implications for software project management. Engineering
Management, IEEE Transactions on, 51(1), 31- 46, Feb. 2004.
doi: 10.1109/TEM.2003.822468
Davis, M. (2003). Barriers to reflective practice. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(3), 243-
255. doi:10.1177/14697874030043004
De Bono, E. (1991). Lateral and vertical thinking. In J. Henry (Ed.), Creative management (pp.
16–23). London: Sage.

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

126

DeLong, R. (2008). Writing assignments and universal design for instruction: Making the
phantom visible. In J. L. Higbee & E. Goff (Eds.), Pedagogy and Student Services for
Institutional Transformation: Implementing Universal Design in Higher Education
[PASS-IT], 131-136. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, College of Education and
Human Development. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503835.pdf
Diaz, V., Garrett, P. B., Kinley, E. R., Moore, J. F., Schwartz, C. M., & Kohrman, P. (2009).
Faculty development for the 21st century. EDUCAUSE Review, 44(3), 46-55.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., Bossche, P. V. D., & Struyven, K. (2005). Students’ perceptions of a
problem-based learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 8(1), 41-66.
Freund, C. M., Ulin, P. R., & Pierce, S. F. (1990). The dialectic of freedom and accountability:
Balancing faculty workload. Nurse Educator, 15(3), 14-19. doi:10.1097/00006223-
199005000-00008
Gallup, Inc. (2010). How are polls conducted? Retrieved from
http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/How-does-Gallup-polling-work.aspx
Gappa, J. (2008). Today’s majority: Faculty outside the tenure system. Change, 40(4), 50-
53. Retrieved from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1504957731).
Grummon, P. T. H. (2009). Trends in higher education. Planning for Higher Education, 37(4),
48-58. Retrieved from http://www.scup.org/phe.html
Gradel, K., & Edson, A. J. (2010). Putting universal design for learning on the higher ed agenda.
Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 38(2), 111-121.
Gredler, M.E. (2009). Lev S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory of psychological
development. In M. Gredler. Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (6
th
ed.) (pp.
305-347). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

127

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development:
Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal
of Business Research, 57(2), 98-107. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8
Higbee, J. L. (2009). Implementing universal instructional design in postsecondary courses and
curricula. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 6(8), 65-78.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy
of Management Journal, 52(2), 280-293.
Hiser, K. (2008). Taking faculty development online: The online medium nurtures dialogue
among faculty coming from different disciplines and levels of experience. Diverse Issues
in Higher Education 29(14), n.p. Gale document number: GALEIA184133290
Howden, M. L., and Meyer, J. A. (2011). Age and sex composition. 2010 Census Briefs (May
2011). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Census Bureau Washington, DC 20233.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
Jackson, N. & Sinclair, C. (2006). Developing students’ creativity searching for an appropriate
pedagogy. In N. Jackson, M. Oliver, M. Shaw, and J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing
creativity in higher education: An imaginative curriculum (pp. 118-141). London, New
York: Routledge.
Jacobs, J. A. & Winslow, S. E. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596, 104-129.
doi:10.1177/0002716204268185
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

128

Kaya, N., Webb, J.D., Weber, M. J. (2005). Faculty scholarly goals: Relationships between
institutional, departmental, and individual’s emphasis. Education, 125, 3; Research
Library Core, 446-453.
Karakas, F. (2010). Positive management education: Creating creative minds, passionate hearts,
and kindred spirits. Journal of Management Education 2011 35: 198 [originally
published online 18 June 2010]. DOI: 10.1177/1052562910372806
Keeling, R.P., & Hersh, R.H. (2012). Culture change for learning. Excerpt from R.P. Keeling,
& R.H. Hersh (2011), We’re Losing Our Minds (n.p.). New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/04/12/essay-
making-student-learning-focus-higher-education
Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in Higher
Education, 50(7), 715-740. doi:10.1007/Jack1162-009-9139-6
Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An
exploration into the developmental process. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 831-
860. doi:10.1007/Jack1162-004-6227-5
Kerr, C., & Lloyd, C. (2008). Pedagogical learnings for management education: Developing
creativity and innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(5), 486-503.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5.
Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers' self-efficacy and job satisfaction:
Teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(3), 741. DOI: 10.1037/a0019237
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

129

Kleiman, P. (2008). Towards transformation: Conceptions of creativity in higher education.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45(3), 209-217.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2012). How should the higher education workforce adapt to
advancements in technology for teaching and learning? Internet and Higher Education.
doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.12.002
Ma, H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis.
Creativity Research Journal, 21(1), 30-42.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not
good and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage/Corwin Press.
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction. A new
paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special
Education, 24(6), 369-379. doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501
McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006). Universal design and its applications in
educational environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27(3), 166-175.
doi:10.1177/07419325060270030501
Meltzoff, J. (2010). Critical thinking about research (11
th
ed.). Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Merrill, D.M. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 50(3), 43-59. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/30220335
Miller, D. M., Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. Measurement and assessment in teaching. Upper
Saddle River, N. J.: Pearson/Merrill.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

130

Moore, A. H., Fowler, S. B., & Watson, C. E. (2007). Active learning and technology:
Designing change for faculty, students, and institutions. Educause Review, 42(5), 42-44.
Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/erm07/erm075.asp
Morrison, A., & Johnston, B. (2003). Personal creativity for entrepreneurship: Teaching and
learning strategies. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(2), 145-158.
Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4) (Winter,
1985), 287-293. National Council on Measurement in Education. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/1434704
Nicholl, B. (2004). Teaching and learning creativity. Conference paper. Design and technology
(D&T) conference series: [178]. Loughborough University Institutional Repository, UK.
2007-06-12T08:35:26Z. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2134/2882
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Validity and qualitative research: An oxymoron?
Quality & Quantity, 2007 (41), 233-249. doi: 10.1007/Jack1135-006-9000-3
O'Neal, G. S. (2007). Continents, cultures, curriculum: Some thoughts on the future of the
profession. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 25(4), 375-379.
doi:10.1177/0887302X07306991
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Educational psychology at the millennium: A look back and a look
forward. Educational Psychologist, 35(4), 221-226.
doi:10.1207/JACK5326985EP3504_01
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

131

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667-686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pintrich, P. R., & Linnenbrink, E. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement
and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.
doi:10.1080/10573560308223
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age.
New York: Penguin/Riverhead Books.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to
educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research.
Educational Psychologist, 39:2, 83-96. doi: 10.1207/Jack5326985ep3902_1
Postareff, L., Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A. (2007). The effect of pedagogical training on
teaching in higher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(5), 557-571.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.013
Pounder, J. (2006). Transformational classroom leadership: The fourth wave of teacher
leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. ISSN 1741-1432
doi: 10.1177/1741143206068216
Powell, S. (2007). Spotlight on Edward de Bono. Management Decision, 45(6). 1058-1163. doi:
10.1108/00251740710762080
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004). The top five reasons for lurking: improving
community experience for everyone. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 201-223.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

132

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
doi:10.1108/10748120110424816
Robertson, J. (2011). The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers
& Education 57, 1628-1644. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Robinson Kurpius, S. E., & Stafford, M. E. (2006). Testing and Measurement a user-friendly
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Roth, S. P., Tuch, A. N., Mekler, E. D., Bargas-Avila, J. A., & Opwis, K. (2013). Location
matters, especially for non-salient features–An eye-tracking study on the effects of web
object placement on different types of websites. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 71(3), 228-235. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.09.001
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. Schein.
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed., pp. 3-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Schenkler, B. R. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 19, 241-301.
Schneider, A., von Krogh, G., Jäger, P. (2013). “What’s coming next?” Epistemic lurking
behavior in online communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 293-303. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.008
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuldt, B. A., & Totten, J. W. (2008). Technological factors & business faculty stress.
Proceedings of the Academy of Information and Management Sciences, 12(1), 13-18.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

133

Sharma, R. D., & Jyoti, J. (2009). Job satisfaction of university teachers: An empirical study.
Journal of Services Research, 9(2), 51-80.
Smith, M. K. (2001, 2011). Donald Schön: Learning, reflection and change. The Encyclopedia
of Informal Education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm
Smyre, R. L. (2008). On searching for new genes: A 21
st
century DNA for higher education and
life-long learning. In G. Madhavan, B. Oakley, & L. Kun (Series Eds.), Series in
Biomedical Engineering: Career development in bioengineering and biotechnology (Part
4, pp. 1-7). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-76495-5_34
Sobehart, H. C. (2011). De Bono, Edward. In Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership
Administration. Sage Publications. Retrieved from
http://sage-ereference.com.libproxy.usc.edu/view/edleadership/n157.xml
Sorcinelli, M. D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P. L., Beach, A. L. (2006). Creating the future of faculty
development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass/Anker.
Sorcinelli, M. D. (2007). Faculty development: The challenge going forward. Peer Review,
9(4), 4-8. Retrieved from Education Module. (Document ID: 1421551041).
Teeter, C., Fenton, N., Nicholson, K., Flynn, T. Kim, J., McKay, M., O’Shaughnessy, B., &
Vajoczki, S. (2011). Using communities of practice to foster faculty development in
higher education. In Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Windsor
[Canada]/McMaster University, Collected Essays on Teaching and Learning, Vol. IV, 52-
57. Retrieved from: http://celt.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/CELT/article/view/3273

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

134

Tinsley, R., & Lebak, K. (2009). A Collaborative Learning Model to Empower Teachers to Be
Reflective Practitioners. Paper presented at the Edge Conference: Inspiration and
Innovation in Teaching and Teacher Education, St. John's, Newfoundland, Oct. 15, 2009.
Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/PDFS/ED509026.pdf
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Measurement validity types. Research Methods Knowledge Base.
Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measval.php
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., Kester, L., & Kirschner, P. A. (2005). Just-in-time information
presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational
Psychology 31 (2006), 167-185. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.04.002
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). An experimental study of concept development. In R.W. Rieber, &
A.S. Carton (Eds.), Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general
psychology, 121-166. New York: Plenum Press. [Original work published in 1934].
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of
ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433596
White, S.C., & Glickman, T.S. (2007). Innovation in higher education: Implications for the
future. New Directions for Higher Education, 137 (Spring 2007). doi: 10.1002/he.248
Retrieved from http://www.interscience.wiley.com
Winslow, S. E., & Jacobs, J. A. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 596(1), 104-129.
doi:10.1177/0002716204268185
Wisdom, J. (2006). Developing higher education teachers to teach creatively. In N. Jackson, M.
Oliver, M. Shaw, and J. Wisdom (Eds.), Developing creativity in higher education: An
imaginative curriculum, 183-196. London, New York: Routledge.
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

135

Wlodkowski, R. J. (2003). Fostering motivation in professional development programs. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2003(98), 39-48. doi:10.1002/ace.98
Zeff, R. (2007). Universal design across the curriculum. New Directions for Higher Education,
2007(137), 27-44. doi:10.1002/he.244
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25 (2000), 82-91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

136

Appendix A
End-of-Study User Survey
Dear Colleague:
Thank you for your participation in the Faculty Development Forum (FDF) survey. This survey
will investigate the use and effectiveness of the online Faculty Development Forum (FDF), or
what impact you think it had (if any) on your teaching. Your input is extremely valuable and the
results of this survey will be used to further develop and improve the FDF. All responses are
anonymous and strictly confidential.

Please allow 5 to 10 minutes to complete this anonymous questionnaire.

Thank you for your participation!
Q1. Which faculty group do you belong to?
o Non-tenure track
o Tenure-track
o Tenured
o Part-time faculty
o Other

Q2. Did you use the FDF this semester?
If “Yes” participants continued with MAIN SURVEY (Q4)
If “No” participants continued with (Q.3) and then jumped to (Q26) since their replies about FDF
content were not applicable.
Q3. Please indicate why you have not used the FDF. Mark all that apply.
o I am confident in my teaching approaches
o I am well-versed in issues of student learning
o I have not had time
o I did not teach this semester
o I was not aware of the FDF
o I had trouble accessing the FDF
o Other (please indicate).

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

137

MAIN SURVEY
Q4. How useful are the FDF's featured content areas? Mark all that apply.
Scale: 1 (Do not use); 2 (Not useful); 3 (Somewhat useful); 4 (Useful); 5 (Very Useful)
o Content pages about subject areas (e.g., Instructional Design)
o Webinars
o Announcement features (RSS)
o Links to resources (e.g., websites, videos)
o Discussion board
o Other (please indicate)

Q5. How useful is the FDF content about teaching and learning? Mark all that apply.
Variables: Content effectiveness; attribution.
Scale: 1 (Do not use); 2 (Not useful); 3 (Somewhat useful); 4 (Useful); 5 (Very Useful)
o Instructional design (e.g., learning objectives, multiple means of instruction)
o Online learning
o Teaching ethics in business
o Information about creativity and creative thinking
o Templates, Guidelines, and Syllabi
o Learning theories (e.g., student goal orientation)
o Technologies to enhance instruction and learning
o Teaching critical thinking
o Teaching the Millennial Generation

Issues, Methods, and Processes of Teaching and Learning
Q6. Since using the FDF, has your knowledge of teaching and learning methods and
processes increased (e.g., understanding of instructional methods, learning theories)?
Variables: attribution; pedagogy; universal design; double-loop learning; reflection.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q7. Since using the FDF, are you more aware of your students’ learning styles and needs
than previously?
Variables: attribution; reflection; pedagogy.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

138

Q8. Since using the FDF, have you changed or are you planning to change teaching
approaches in the classroom?
Variables: innovation; pedagogy; reflection; motivation; goals.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q9. If you plan to change existing teaching approaches, or develop new ones, will you include
multiple means of instruction (e.g., instructional technologies, “flip-classroom techniques,”
project/problem-based learning)?
Variables: pedagogy; technology; universal design; motivation; double-loop learning; goals.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q10. Please share any changes or planned changes to your teaching approaches.
Variables: pedagogy; innovation; creativity; motivation; goals.
Short answer (may skip):
Q11. Since using the FDF, have you or will you revise the learning objectives for a course?
Variables: pedagogy; motivation; goals.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q12. Do you review learning objectives and outcomes with your students?
Variables: pedagogy; double-loop learning; goals.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q13. Since using the FDF, have you modified or introduced new teaching approaches to
enhance students' critical thinking skills?

Variables: pedagogy; innovation; creativity.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

139

Q14. Since using the FDF, have you modified or introduced new teaching approaches to
enhance students' creative thinking skills?
Variables: pedagogy; innovation; creativity.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q15. Please share the greatest challenges in enhancing students' critical and creative thinking
skills.

Variable: reflection.

Short answer (may skip).

Q16. Since using the FDF, have you designed or re-designed instructional approaches to
support your students’ reflection on their learning (e.g., reflective journals)?
Variables: pedagogy; innovation; creativity; reflection.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q17. Since using the FDF, have you or will you experiment with other teaching innovations
not noted above?
Variables: creativity; innovation.
Short answer (may skip).
Personal Growth and Colleague Interaction
Q18. Since using the FDF, have you set personal goals for professional growth?
Variables: attribution; double-loop learning; goals.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Q19. Does the FDF support exchange among colleagues in issues of teaching and learning
(e.g., webinars)?
Variable: culture.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

140

Q20. Have you discussed or shared insight gained from the FDF with colleagues; for example,
to seek input or collaboration?
Variable: culture.
Scale: 1 (Not at all); 2 (To a slight extent); 3 (Not sure/neutral); 4 (To a moderate extent); 5 (To
a great extent)
Overall Assessment of the FDF
Q21. Please indicate your overall assessment of the FDF for each statement below.
Scale: 1 (Strongly disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Neither agree nor disagree); 4 (Agree); 5 (Strongly
agree)

The FDF supports creativity in developing course content.
Variables: pedagogy; multiple means of instruction; technology.

The FDF supports innovativeness in instructional approaches.
Variables: innovation; pedagogy.

The FDF is a valuable tool in supporting professional growth.
Variables: goal setting; attribution.

The FDF supports a culture of learning.
Variables: culture, pedagogy.

The FDF supports community building among faculty.
Variables: community, culture.

Q22. As a result of visiting the FDF, have you attended workshops provided by Your School or
the wider university community? Mark all that apply.
Query variable: motivation.
o Attended a School event
o Attended Center for Instructional Technology event
o Attended Center for Teaching Excellence event
o Attended other University event
o Registered but was unable to attend
o Was interested, but event(s) did not fit my schedule
o I do not find workshops very helpful
o Other reasons for attending/not attending. Please indicate. (Short answer)

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

141

Access Frequency to FDF and Linked Sites
Q23. How often have you accessed the FDF?
Variable: motivation.
Scale: 1 (Less than once a month); 2 (Once a month); 3 (2-3 Times a month); 4 (Once a week); 5
(2-3 Times a week); 6 (Daily)
Q24. When browsing the FDF, how often have you accessed sites listed below?
Variable: motivation.
Scale: 1 (Less than once a month); 2 (Once a month); 3 (2-3 Times a month); 4 (Once a week); 5
(2-3 Times a week); 6 (Daily)
o School’s Mentoring Site
o Edudemic
o Teaching Community
o e-Learning Guild
o School’s Faculty Resources (info about grant opportunities)
o School’s Experiential Learning Center
o University’s Center for Teaching Excellence
o University’s Center for Instructional Technology
o Other (enter choice)

Q25. Please share your impressions of the FDF or suggestions about how it could be improved
to meet your needs (e.g., content areas you wish to see).
Short answer (both users and non-users of the FDF).
Thank you again for taking the time to complete this survey!

FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

142

Appendix B
Tables for Chapter Three

a
F = Frequencies.
b
QN = Quantitative.
c
QL = Qualitative.

Table B1

Variables and Type of Analysis for Research Questions

Research Questions Variables Type of Analysis
F
a
QN
b
QL
c
1. To what extent will the web-based development
platform provide a universally accessible and
acceptable source that effectively motivates faculty
to engage in professional development?

1.1 To what extent will faculty use the web-based
platform? (Descriptive) (Active
choice/acceptance: Will they accept it as a tool
for professional growth?)

1.2 To what extent will faculty indicate interest in
further learning about issues in instruction?
(Also open ended questions, usage reports)

1.3 To what extent will the web-based development
platform be effective in exposing faculty to
multiple means of learning and instruction, such
as universal design in learning and instruction?

1.4 To what extent will the web-based platform be
effective in augmenting or fostering faculty
creativity for curriculum innovation, such as
project-based learning, or using instructional
technology?

1.5 To what extent will faculty engage in thought
exchange with peers on this platform?
(Descriptive) (Active choice, mental effort,
persistence=motivation; discussion board usage)

(all)

Motivation;
Attribution

Pedagogy;
Reflection;
Motivation
Goal orientation

Universal
Design;
Technology;
Motivation

Innovation;
Creativity

Motivation;
Double-loop
learning;
Culture

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
FACULTY
DEVELOPMENT

143

Table B2
Constructs, Sample FDF Content Modules, and Type of Analysis
Constructs and
corresponding
research questions
(RQ)
Module 1:
Introduction
to universal
design
Module 2:
Integrating
ethics with
your teaching
Module 3:
Teaching
GenY
Type of
Analysis
__________
QN
a
QL
b
Motivation
(participation in
FDF activities;
planning to change;
etc.) (all RQs)
x x x x x

Pedagogy
(RQs 1.2, 1.3, 1.4)
x x x x x

Universal design
(RQ 1.3)
x x x x x

Creativity and
innovation
(RQ 1.4)
x x x x x

a
QN = Quantitative: site usage reports; built-in surveys; outcome survey.

b
QL = Qualitative: open-ended survey questions; outcome survey; interviews.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Supporting faculty for successful online instruction: factors for effective onboarding and professional development

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

A study of the pedagogical strategies used in support of students with learning disabilities and attitudes held by engineering faculty

PDF

Assessing the effectiveness of an inquiry-based science education professional development

PDF

Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

Examining presence as an influence on learning engagement

PDF

Ensuring faculty success in effective online instruction

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Examining the use of online storytelling as a motivation for young learners to practice narrative skills

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Validation matters - student experiences in online courses: a mixed method study

PDF

Cyber-harassment in higher education: online learning environments

PDF

Students with disabilities experience in higher education online courses: an exploratory study of self-efficacy, use of assistive technologies and mobile media

PDF

The sport of learning: the effect of college athletes' perception of identity on approach to learning

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Digital portfolios for learning and professional development: a faculty development curriculum

Asset Metadata

Creator Philadelphia, Marion (author)

Core Title Will school-based online faculty development be an effective tool for their professional growth?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/08/2013

Defense Date 03/13/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag creative thinking,creativity,faculty development,faculty in higher education,faculty learning,faculty motivation,faculty professional development,institutional culture,instructional technology,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,online learning,pedagogy,reflection,universal design

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia Elaine (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Martinez, Brandon (committee member)

Creator Email mphila@sbcglobal.net,philadel@marshall.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-253752

Unique identifier UC11292640

Identifier etd-Philadelph-1673.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-253752 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Philadelph-1673.pdf

Dmrecord 253752

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Philadelphia, Marion

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA