Faculty Mentoring Faculty Lessons Learned from a Formal

Faculty Mentoring Faculty: Lessons Learned from a Formal Learning Technology Mentorship Program Carin Chuang, Assoc. Professor of Computer Information Technology Annette Coates, Clinical Assoc. Professor of Nursing Karen Klosinski, Asst. Professor of Nursing Christabel Rogalin, Assoc. Professor of Sociology Anastasia Trekles, Clinical Asst. Professor of Instructional Technology Sarah White, Continuing Lecturer of English.

“Technology Mentorship Program” Overview �A holistic and personalized approach to professional development in online/blended learning and teaching �Multiple opportunities for feedback and evaluation while developing and teaching a new course �Faculty get to know one another better across disciplines

Program Goals � Mentors (Guides) work with faculty Course Developers to create/recreate and deliver an online, face-to-face, or hybrid course � Each course is reviewed with the Quality Matters rubric � Overall goal is to increase technology use as well as course quality in delivery � Non-punitive, collegial environment

Guides �Complete Quality Matters or commensurate educational technology training/experience �Initiate and attend regular meetings with protégés (at least once monthly) �Informally review courses with Course Developers at the end of the first semester �Review courses with the other Guides at the end of the second semester and certify passing faculty �Stipends provided

Course Developers �Agree to complete development of a course that will be taught in the second semester �Any department , full-time or part-time �Any type of course – new, existing, online, traditional, hybrid �Guides can choose to work with faculty across multiple departments (up to 3 Course Developers per mentor) �Stay in regular communication with mentors throughout the academic year �Stipends provided

Informal Quality Matters Process � Mentors provide continual feedback on all areas of course Objectives Assessments Interaction Course Navigation Accessibility � Formal review at end of spring semester is performed with all mentors together – collaborative effort

Ongoing Training and Support �Monthly workshops each semester on various topics chosen based on faculty interests and feedback (see http: //www. pnc. edu/distance) �Faculty encouraged to use the tools and strategies that work best for them �No specific tool required other than the use of the LMS (Black. Board)

Lessons Learned �Guides have learned a lot about their own teaching as well as supporting others �Gaining greater respect and building community �Ensuring that it’s not all about “online” encourages wider participation

Ongoing Challenges �Time �Consistent participation �Providing constructive criticism �Helping faculty choose the tools best for their courses �Taking things one step at a time

For the Audience �Have you tried/participated in course development programs similar to this? What has worked? What hasn’t? �What have been the major hurdles to implementation of formal training programs for online/hybrid/technology-assisted teaching?

References � � � Barczyk, C. , Buckenmeyer, J. , Feldman, L. , & Hixon, E. (2011). Assessment of a university-based distance education mentoring program from a quality management perspective. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19(1), 5 -24. Huston, T. , & Weaver, C. L. (2008). Peer coaching: Professional development for experienced faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 33(1), 5 -20. Pan, C. , & Thompson, K. (2009). Exploring dynamics between instructional designers and higher education faculty: An ethnographic case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 2(1), 33 -52. Retrieved from http: //www. sicet. org/journals/jetde 09/sam. pdf Quality Matters Program (2014). QM research. Quality Matters. Retrieved from https: //www. qualitymatters. org/research. Sener, J. , & Shattuck, K. (2006). Research literature and standards sets support for Quality Matters review standards as of 12/5/05. Quality Matters.