The Plight of the Phoenix:
The Dilemma of Online Pedagogy for Seasoned Faculty
Carol Shepherd
Marilyn Koeller
Madelon Alpert
National University
Introduction
Today, the majority of institutions of higher education offer online courses. The rapid growth of technology globally requires these universities to have the necessary pedagogues to support the growth of today’s evolving learning society. This represents a major change in pedagogical foundations, and creates a radical disruption (MacCorkindale, 2002). Educators are frequently confronted with integrating new and unfamiliar technology into their pedagogical processes (Czubaj, 2004). Without necessary preparatory training, many faculty are encouraged to teach courses online (Talent-Runnels, Cooper, Lan, Thomas, & Busby, 2005). There is a great deal of pressure from college administrators for faculty members to embrace technology, in order to increase the number of students served, to improve the quality of instruction, and to reach students in areas not served by traditional classroom instruction (Uttendorfer, 2002).
The pedagogy for online courses is dramatically altered from that of face-to-face teaching and completely unfamiliar to many instructors. Teachers must rethink how they teach, and how they will assist and educate students. Seasoned faculty attitudes toward utilizing this form of technology run from sheer terror to mild indifference and from passive acceptance to overt hostility. Older adults generally exhibit a greater anxiety toward computers than younger adults, and have more negative attitudes (Laguna & Babcock, 1997). Some are technophobes, and deliberately shy away from using technology (Bell, 2006). The university professor who holds reign in the classroom, the master of content and pedagogy, is a dying breed. The instructor of today must be versed in technology, and willing and able to effectively teach classes online. It reminds one of the Legend of the Phoenix. An analogy can be made that the magnificent Phoenix, the revered and respected college classroom pedagogue, is perishing amid the smoke and flames of change.
This change toward teaching classes online is occurring too rapidly for many university faculty, and their lack of knowledge or expertise leads to their resistance. The fear of appearing incompetent may cause faculty to avoid involvement in an activity for which they have insufficient training (Tshivase, 2005). Attitudinal issues of how people perceive and react to technology are even more significant in influencing the use of technology than the physical technological obstacles (Mishra, Kochler, Hershey, & Peruski, 2002). The key to success in this area is to be mindful of the needs of the people involved (Schar, 2002; Sahin & Thompson, 2007).
Background
Staff development is necessary to support this anytime, anyplace flexible learning environment. Many faculty are simple told they will have to teach online, and have to self-educate with a manual or an online training program. The manual could leave out many of the aspects of the online course platform, and the training could be sketchy and ineffective. These practices are more the norm than the unique. There is an urgent need for change.
Little research exists on the mentoring of older adult learners in the teaching of online courses and the necessary technical training involved to enable them to become effective in utilizing that mode of delivery. With the adult learner, Witte and Wolf (2003) determined it is best to use a facilitative approach in technology courses. The adult learner experiences different developmental stages than a young learner, with different attitudes and perceptions regarding change, curriculum, collaboration, and the learning process in general (Witte & Wolf, 2003). There is little research on the learning diversity of midlife and older adults in regard to their receptivity and the effectiveness of different teaching techniques (Morris & Ballard, 3003). Research on university mentoring programs is also scarce (Savage, Karp, & Logue, 2004).
Action Research on Mentoring and Mentoring Programs
The writers of this paper all experienced great difficulty when we were literally thrown into the abyss of online teaching, with no prior training. We later collaborated on our experiences, and invited the anecdotes of colleagues from all over the world who had had similar indoctrinations into online teaching. We designed and conducted a survey of fifty seasoned faculty to determine what they thought would be helpful in preparing them to be able to effectively teach online. One-on-one mentoring by trusted colleagues was the solution suggested by the majority of those involved.
Savage, Karp, & Logue (2004) stressed the need for collegiality in mentoring programs, and referred to the study by Naisbitt and Aburdene (1990) indicating that human response is vital to counterbalance the introduction of technology into society. The researchers recommended that a human lens is needed to evaluate technology and enable people to embrace technology in a manner that preserves humanity.
Researchers Sahin and Thompson conducted a survey to determine whether collegial interaction, among other factors, was a significant variable as a predictor of faculty technology adoption level (2006). They found one-on-one mentoring by a trusted colleague may successfully meet the needs of faculty regarding their use of technology. Assistance is provided within the parameters of a personal relationship, focused on the individual needs of the learner (Sahin & Thompson, 2006).
Faculty mentoring programs are important for faculty development, for retention of faculty, for achievement of academic goals, and for the attainment of institutional goals. Both protégés and mentors benefit from the mentoring relationship (Zeind, Zdanowicz, MadDonald, & Parkhurst, 2005). Certain mentor attributes are necessary if the programs are going to be successful. Mentors must be concerned with the learning styles and needs of the mentees (Witte & Wolf, 2003). They must possess wisdom, commitment, caring, humor, integrity, and have high expectations. The mentor acts as a catalyst, and must be generous in sharing time with the mentee, be willing to learn, open to the limitations of another, have the ability to trust, and have the good judgment to offer appropriate encouragement and praise (Zeind, Zdanowicz, MadDonald, & Parkhurst, 2005). An effective mentor must permit the learner to set the pace, and provide support, a technology lifeline, and a challenge (Witte & Wolf, 2003). It is important for a mentor to have the ability to detect qualitative changes in the mentee rather than immediate competency. The mentor should be able to recognize the potential of another, and encourage and nurture that potential strength.
Adult learners exhibit specific andragogical characteristics (O’Quinn, 2002; Knowles, 1984). Peer mentoring by trusted colleagues can address these needs. Education for older adults is empowering. It is a means to gain control in the adjustment to technological change, and provide greater self-fulfillment for the faculty (Glendenning & Battersby, 1990).
Individual training involves individual mentors and technology helpers. Personalized, individual technology assistance is necessary. Faculty members have a wide range of technological skills and needs, and this cannot be covered by group technology workshops. The focus must be on what learners actually need to do. Tailor-made training enables the mentor and mentee to determine the correct next step, and individually direct the learning process (Leh, 2005). It is important for professional development training to be offered at appropriate skill levels for individual faculty members, so that they are not overwhelmed or bored. Support while learning new technological skills is mandatory. Mentoring involves meeting with peers to share experiences, seek solutions, re-teach specific skills and improve usage (Hinson, Laprairie, & Cundiff, 2005). In order to facilitate twenty-first century learners, it is necessary to have effective technological integration, which includes mentoring faculty.
Planning for the Future
The key word is continuation: to provide faculty with the opportunity for lifelong learning through developing new skills and interests (Saunders & Hamilton, 1999). The dynamic nature of communication is that as conversation continues, understanding develops and widens. This is the helix of communication, with no start or end point. The helical approach to staff development emphasizes long-termism, creativity, and strategic dissemination (Saunders & Hamilton, 1999). Professional development for educators is only successful if educators themselves drive the content (Goodale, Carbonaro, & Snart, 2002). Faculty want people who have had experience teaching online courses to share their best practices. Those competent in the technology processes can mentor others in their school or department. It is not productive to learn technological skills without help, and it can be a waste of time.
Educators would like to be able to ask a colleague to drop by for quick verbal assistance with teaching an online course. Faculty need help when they need help. Informal chats are social opportunities where people pick up tips and tricks. Instructors do not want to read to learn how to teach online, they want a personal visit and a demonstration. They want a private tutor, face-to-face, one-on-one.
Creating one-on-one mentoring programs for seasoned faculty provides an innovative model for the successful transition to teaching online courses. The mentor can address technical skills as well as university policy concerns and create an “how to” dialogue with a trusted colleague. Effective one-on-one mentoring promotes a professional, compassionate and collegial faculty who will provide a consistent and rigorous academic program for students online. It will re-inspire educators’ spirit for teaching and working with students. With the conscientious implementation of this concept, the Phoenix will be reborn from its ashes as an online dynamo!
References
Bell, M. (2006). Encouraging technophobes: Old dogs CAN learn new tricks. Multimedia & Internet@Schools, (13)6, 36-39.
Retrieved August 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Czubaj, C. (2004). Internetreview: Educator concerns regarding cyberspace curricula. Education, 125(1), 15-20. Retrieved
March 20, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Goodale, C., Carbonaro, M. & Snart, F. (2002). Faculty of education staff development – Support of tomorrow’s teachers.
In B. Gillian & K. McFerrin (Eds.) Proceedings of SITE 2002: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 39-43). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472233).
Hinson , J., Laprairie, K. & Cundiff, J. (2005). One size does NOT fit ALL. T H E Journal, 32(11), 26-30. Retrieved March 13,
2007 from EbscoHost database.
Knowles, M. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Chicago: Association Press.
Laguna, K. & Babcock, L. (1997). Computer anxiety in young and older adults: Implications for human-computer
interactions in older populations. Computers in Human Behavior, 13, 317-326.
Leh, A. (2005). Lessons learned from service learning and reverse mentoring in faculty development:A case study in
technology training. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(1), 25-42. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from
ProQuest database.
MacCorkindale, G. (2002). Helping to prepare tomorrow’s teachers using technology: Faculty development. In B. Gillian &
K. McFerrin (Eds.) Proceedings of SITE 2002: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (pp. 24-25). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472233).
Mishra, P., Kochler, M., Hershey, K. & Peruski, L. (2002). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty
development and online course design. In B. Gillian & K. McFerrin (Eds.) Proceedings of SITE 2002: Society for
Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 93-97). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED472233).
Morris, M. & Ballard, S. (2003). Instructional techniques and environmental considerations in family life education programming
for midlife and older adults. Family Relations, 52(2), 167-174. Retrieved March 9, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Sahin, I. & Thompson, A. (2007). Analysis of predictive factors that influence members’ technology level.Journal of Technology
and Teacher Education, 15(2), 167-191. Retrieved August 1, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Saunders, D. & Hamilton, D. (1999). A twinning model for staff development in higher education. Education and Training
International, 36(2), 118-128.
Savage, H., Karp, R. & Logue, R. (2004). Faculty mentorship at colleges and universities. College Teaching, 52(1), 21-25.
Retrieved March 5, 2006 from ProQuest database.
Schar, A. (2002). Development of a program to support faculty in the creation of online classes at Saddelback College.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova Southwestern University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED474591).
Talent-Runnels, M., Cooper, S., Lan, W., Thomas, J. & Busby, C. (2005). Distance Learning, 2(1), 21-28. Retrieved March 20,
2006 from ProQuest database.
Tshivase, A. (2005). Staff development, an issue for open and distance learning: A reflection at the University of South Africa.
In A. Gaskell & A. Tait (Eds.) Proceedings of The 11th Cambridge International Conference on Open and Distance
Learning (pp. 193-199).
Uttendorfer, M. (2002). Adding “flash” to your faculty development program. In B. Gillian & K. McFerrin (Eds.) Proceedings of
SITE 2002: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 146-148).
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472233).
Wilson, C. (2001). Faculty attitudes about distance learning. Educause Quarterly, 24(2), 70-71.Retrieved April 2, 2007 from
EbscoHost database.
Witte, M. & Wolf, S. (2003). Infusing mentoring and technology within graduate courses: Reflections in practice. Mentoring
& Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 11(1), 95-104. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from EbscoHost database.
Zeind,C., Zdanowicz, M., MacDonald, K. & Parkhurst, C. (2005). Developing a sustainable faculty mentoring program.
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(1-5), K1-14. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from ProQuest database. |
