Chapter 5 A Responsive, Consultative Professional Development Model for Online Engagement

In: Handbook of Research in Online Learning
Authors:
Victoria Brown
Search for other papers by Victoria Brown in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
Florence Williams
Search for other papers by Florence Williams in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
Shernette Dunn
Search for other papers by Shernette Dunn in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Type:
Chapter
Pages:
106–132
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004702813_005

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00
Add to Cart
Redeem Access Token

Abstract

Professional development within higher education for online teaching has changed in the past decade as faculty became knowledgeable about the design, delivery, and implementation of online and hybrid classes. Before, a one-size-fits-all model was a desirable choice when face-to-face faculty were beginning to navigate the online teaching environment. Post-COVID, faculty transitioned quickly to have a variety of different perspectives and needs online. Within this new environment, a professional development model with a responsive approach will better serve faculty who developed an eclectic base of knowledge about teaching online. A Responsive Professional Development Model requires the training professionals to evaluate the context of the faculty at the institution, be responsive to their concerns, provide flexibility through multiple pathways to obtain the required training, value the relationship between the designer and the faculty member, and take ownership in explaining technical issues. The concepts built into the Responsive Professional Development Model shift the focus to faculty members’ needs rather than the design teams which engage the faculty members to learn the best practices and strategies that will promote academic success in their classes.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
Cover Handbook of Research in Online Learning
E-Book ISBN:
9789004702813
Publisher:
Brill
Print Publication Date:
25 Sep 2024
Front Matter
Chapter 1 Lessons Learned in Conducting a Systematic Review in Online Learning
Chapter 2 The Study of Adult Learners in Distance Education
Chapter 3 Theories and Models to Frame, Inform, and Stimulate Online Learning
Chapter 4 What We Know about Online Teacher Education
Chapter 6 Active Learning by Design
Chapter 7 An Integrative Review of Adult Learners’ Informal Learning in Online Settings
Chapter 8 Metatextual Dimensions of Multimodal Literacy Engagement
Chapter 9 21 Years of Worldwide Learning Online
Chapter 10 A Critical Review of Two Automated Adaptive Teaching Systems in Mathematics and Chemistry
Chapter 11 Automated Analysis and Visualization of Online Learning Experiences and Engagement
Chapter 12 Evidence-based Practices for Developing a Community of Inquiry
Chapter 13 Pre-service Teachers’ Preparation for Teaching Online
Chapter 14 Micro Investment, Big Reward
Chapter 15 Selecting Media and Methods to Facilitate Blended Learning
Chapter 16 The Impact of Digital Learning on Racially Minoritized and Poverty-Affected College Students
Chapter 17 Remote Academic Advising for Colleges and Universities
Chapter 18 Online Mentoring in the Digital Age
Chapter 19 Mental Fatigue in Online Learning
Chapter 20 Analysis of Patterns in Time for Evaluating Online Instruction
Chapter 21 The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning
Chapter 22 Exploring the Impact of E-Texts on Student Learning in Online Education
Chapter 23 Supporting AI-Enhanced Active Online Learning Experiences
Chapter 24 Student Perceptions of Learning with Instructional AI Assistance in Online Discussions
Chapter 25 Gamification for Higher Education Applications
Chapter 26 Developing a Quality Assurance Approach for an Online Professional Military Education Institution
Chapter 27 Skills for Student Success in Online Learning
Back Matter

  • Agarwal, U. A., Jain, K., Anantatmula, V., & Shankar, S. (2023). Understanding project culture. In managing people in projects for high performance: Behavioural approach to productive project teams (pp. 103–120). Springer Nature Singapore.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ameyaw, C. J., Turnhout, E., Arts, B., & Wals, A. (2017). Creating a responsive curriculum for postgraduates: Lessons form a case in Ghana. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 4(1), 573–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2017.1386285

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Baldwin, S. J., & Ching, Y. H. (2019). An online course design checklist: Development and users’ perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 31, 156–172.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Banks, T., & Dohy, J. (2019). Mitigating barriers to persistence: A review of efforts to improve retention and graduation rates for students of color in higher education. Higher Education Studies, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v9n1p118

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. Jossey-Bass.

  • Bigatel, P. M., & Edel-Malizia, S. (2018). Using the “indicators of engaged learning online” framework to evaluate online course quality. TechTrends, 62(1), 58–70.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bragg, L. A., Walsh, C.l., & Heyeres, M. (2021). Successful design and delivery of online professional development for teachers: A systematic review of the literature. Computers & Education, 166, 104158.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brown, G., Myers, C. B., & Roy, S. (2003). Formal course design and the student learning experience. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7 (3), 66–76.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brown, P. C., Roediger, H. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Harvard University Press.

  • Brown, V., Lewis, D., & Toussaint, M. (2018). Students’ perception of quality across four-course development models. Online Learning Journal, 22(2), 173–196. https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/1213/390

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Brown, V., Powers, J., Musgrove, A., & Olden, D. (2020). How professional development choices influence faculty self-efficacy and attitudes in the adoption of distance learning tools [Paper presentation]. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2020 (pp. 389–394). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Bryant, D. A., & Walker, A. (2022). Principal-designed structures that enhance middle leaders professional learning. Education Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221084154

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Code of Federal Regulations Title 34 CFR 600.2. (2020). https://ecfr.io/Title-34/Section-600.2#google_vignette

  • Crimmins, G. (Ed.). (2022). Strategies for supporting inclusion and diversity in the academy: Higher education, aspiration and inequality. Springer Nature.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Cross, J. D., & Carman, C. A. (2022). The relationship between faculty diversity and student success in public community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 46(12), 855–868.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Downs, L. (2021). Regular and substantive interaction refresh: Reviewing and sharing our best interpretation of current guidance and requirements. Frontiers, WCET. https://wcet.wiche.edu/frontiers/2021/08/26/rsi-refresh-sharing-our-best-interpretation-guidance-requirements/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Drysdale, J. (2019). The collaborative mapping model: Relationship-centered instructional design for higher education. Online Learning, 23(3), 56–71.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Dunn, S., & Brown, V. (2021). Supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion for culturally diverse online learners. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. https://ojdla.com/articles/supporting-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-for-culturally-diverse-online-learners

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Fitzpatrick, J. (2011). Planning guide for online and blended learning. The Michigan Virtual University. https://michiganvirtual.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PlanningGuide-2012.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Forehand, M. (2010). Bloom’s taxonomy. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology, 41(4), 47–56.

  • Gabriel, K. F. (2023). Teaching unprepared students: Strategies for promoting success and retention in higher education. Taylor & Francis.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2000). A transactional perspective on teaching-learning: A framework for adult and higher education. Pergamon.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Golden, J., & Brown, V. (2016). Creating holistic professional development for faculty adoption of distance learning delivery. In C. Martin & D. Polly (Eds.), Encyclopedia of teacher education and professional development (pp. 259–284). IGI-Global.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gunter, G. A., & Reeves, J. L. (2017). Online professional development embedded with mobile learning: An examination of teacher attitudes, engagement and dispositions. British Journal of Education Technology, 48(6), 1305–1317. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12490

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hall, G. E., & Hord., S. M. (2020). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and pothole. Pearson Education, Inc.

  • Halupa, C. (2019). Differentiation of roles: Instructional designers and faculty in the creation of online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n1p55

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harmonize. (2022). Regular and substantive interaction requirements for online learning. https://harmonizelearning.com/blog/regular-and-substantive-interaction-requirements-online-learning/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Harrington, C. (2021). Keeping us engaged: Student perspectives (and research-based strategies) on what works and why. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hawkes, M., & Coldeway, D. O. (2002). An analysis of team vs faculty-based online course development: Implications for instructional design. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 431–441.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Hussain, W., Mak, F. K., & Addas, M. F. (2016, June). Engineering program evaluations based on automated measurement of performance indicators data classified into cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning domains of the revised bloom’s taxonomy. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Institution of Education Science. (n.d.). Race/ethnicity of college faculty. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Legon, R. (2015). Measuring the impact of the Quality Matters Rubric™: A discussion of possibilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(3), 166–173.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Leslie, H. J. (2019). Trifecta of student engagement: A framework for an online teaching professional development course for faculty in higher education. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(2).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Li, R., Liu, H., Chen, Y., & Yao, M. (2022). Teacher engagement and self-efficacy: The mediating role of continuing professional development and moderating role of teaching experience. Current Psychology, 41, 328–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00575-5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Littlefield, M. B., Rubinstein, K., & Laveist, C. B. (2019). Designing for quality: Distance education rubrics for online MSW programs. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 39(4–5), 489–504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Martin, F., & Borup, J. (2022). Online learning engagement: Conceptual definitions, research themes, and supportive practices. Educational Psychologist, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2089147

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • McCormick, A. C., Kinzie, J., & Kormaz, A. (2011, April). Understanding evidence-based improvement in higher education: The case of student engagement. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Mose, P. O. (2022). Instructional design in a time of crisis: Experiences of instructional designers and faculty as ‘first responders.’ Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 51(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472395221105901

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Nam, J. (2023). Diversity in higher education: Facts and statistics. BestColleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/diversity-in-higher-education-facts-statistics/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Núñez-Canal, M., de Obesso, M., & Pérez-Rivero, C. A. (2022). New challenges in higher education: A student of the digital competence of educators in Covid times. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121270

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Online Learning Consortium. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric.

  • Parkhouse, H., Lu, C. Y., & Massaro, V. R. (2019). Multicultural education professional development: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 416–458.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K., (2011). The excellent online instructor: Strategies for professional development. Wiley.

  • Pickett, A. M. (2015). The open SUNY COTE quality review (OSCQR) process and rubric. Online Learning Consortium. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/consult/oscqr-course-design-review/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Prestridge, S., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Exploring elements that support teachers’ engagement in online professional development. Education Sciences, 5, 199–219. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1117259

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Quality Matters. (2020). Course Design Rubric Standards 6th Ed. Quality matters. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Redmond, P., Abawi, L.-A., Brown, A., Henderson, R. (2018). An online engagement framework for higher education. Online Learning Journal, 22(1), 183–204. https://research.usq.edu.au/download/b5349af4cb2cfc0df6825aa74a188e89eeb38fc1b6619a8f57cc25e8d350c2b0/451878/1175-5951-1-PB.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Richardson, J. C., Ashby, I., Alshammari, A. N., Cheng, Z., Johnson, B. S., Krause, T. S., Lee, D., Randolph, A. E., & Wang, H. (2019). Faculty and instructional designer on building successful collaborative relationships. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67, 855–880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9636-4

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Robertson, A. D., Scherr, R. E., & Hammer, D. (2015). Responsive teaching in science and mathematics. Routledge.

  • Sue, D. W., Sue, D., Neville, H. A., & Smith, L. (2022). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Braaten, M., Colley, C., & Windschitl, M. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 18(45).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Turner, L. A., & Merriman, K. K. (2022). Cultural intelligence and establishment of organisational diversity management practices: An upper echelons perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(2), 321–340.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Vreuls, J., Koeslag-Kreunen, M., van der Klink, M., Nieuwenhuis, L., & Boshuizen, H. (2022). Responsive curriculum development for professional education: Different teams, different tales. The Curriculum Journal, 33(4), 636–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/curj.155

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Williams, F. (2021). Flexible learning design: A turning point for resilient adult education. Journal of Adult Education in Tanzania, 23(1), 165–191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Woolf, N. (2023). 45 survey questions to understand student engagement in online learning. Panorama Education. https://www.panoramaed.com/blog/45-questions-for-understanding-student-engagement-in-online-learning

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Williams, F. (2015). The Nexus between stakeholder engagement and instructional quality: The case of the UWI open campus’s awareness and professional development towards a quality support framework. Journal of Learning for Development, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v2i2.97

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Zimmer, W. K., & Matthews, S. D. (2022). A virtual coaching model of professional development to increase teachers’ digital learning competencies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103544

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 60 60 5
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Views & Downloads 5 5 0