Web-Mediated Faculty Professional Development:
Improving Learning, Building Community, and Assessing Outcomes

Robert W. Fulton, Paula E. Noonan, and James M. Dorris

The authors of this study document within the literature the relationship between faculty professional development efforts and higher education effectiveness; describe the systemic, web-mediated faculty professional development program initiated at Jones International University; and analyze the perspectives of JIU’s faculty regarding the effectiveness of the university’s development program. The authors hypothesized that JIU’s professional development efforts helped the university’s faculty to become more effective online educators. Faculty members who responded to a survey reported that the university’s web-mediated faculty professional development program improved their ability to facilitate their students’ learning, built a community of education professionals, and helped them to assess their teaching outcomes and their students’ learning outcomes.

Web-mediated faculty professional development holds promise for university and community college faculties for many of the same reasons online postsecondary education holds promise for students. Web-mediated staff development can meet the needs of an institution’s busy and geographically dispersed faculty at times and locations that allow them to participate at a low cost to the institution. Furthermore, online development offers opportunities for faculty professional growth that are less possible and less likely in face-to-face professional development. Web-mediated professional development is pedagogically promising in that faculty members can work together to explore issues over time, access internet resources, observe and participate in mentors’ and peers’ virtual classrooms, and work with international experts. Participants can be more active and more reflective in conversations, which is helpful to all and especially significant for new or introspective staff members.

Faculty members in online environments recognize that use of the internet affects their pedagogical approaches (Gallini & Barron, 2001-2002; Gallini, Barron, & Hart, 2000; International Society for Technology in Education, 2000a; International Society for Technology in Education, 2000b; Lan, 2001), methods of communication with their students and each other (Ahern & El-Hindi, 2000; Henry, 2002; Seels, Campbell, & Talsma, 2003), students’ levels of engagement (Cox, 2000; Fletcher & Stewart, 2001; Jones & Moller, 2002-2003; Shea, Sherer, & Kristensen, 2002; Worley & Chesebro, 2002), and expectations of student achievement (McCain & Jukes, 2001; Nellis, Hosman, King, & Armstead, 2002; Sherer & Shea, 2002). Since web-mediated learning technology is a recent development, many current online professors began their teaching careers in brick-and-mortar classrooms and continue to teach face to face. A faculty member’s ability to think, learn, communicate, and teach beyond the bounds of a traditional classroom, though, is essential to success in the new online environment.

This research study was designed to accomplish three goals. (1) The authors document within the literature the relationship between faculty professional development efforts and higher education effectiveness. (2) The authors describe the systemic, web-mediated faculty professional development program initiated at Jones International University (JIU). (3) The authors provide a descriptive analysis of the perspectives of JIU’s faculty regarding the effectiveness of the university’s professional development program. The authors intended to find out whether or not JIU’s professional development efforts helped the university’s faculty to become more effective online educators. In their analysis, they found that JIU faculty members who responded to a survey reported that the university’s web-mediated faculty professional development program improved their ability to facilitate their students’ learning, built a community of education professionals, and helped them to assess their teaching outcomes and their students’ learning outcomes.

Review of Literature: Improving Learning

As increased access to higher education began to change learner demographics in the 1970s, faculty members saw the need to better understand their students and the learning process. O’Banion (1981) reported a number of reasons, which carry forward to the online environment, to provide faculty members with effective professional development. He found that staff development should help teachers to stay informed about their disciplines, understand new developments in higher education, and prepare for a changing student body (pp. 6-8). Furthermore, O’Banion found that faculty development efforts can provide new professors with an introduction to an institution’s culture, provide renewal opportunities for existing personnel, and help staffs develop a sense of community. Even though the last three decades have seen an increase in calls for more and better professional development, institutional support for faculty development has been inconsistent (Gappa & Leslie, 1993), and faculty development remains a low-budget priority at American colleges and universities (Roueche & Roueche, 1993).

In the past 10 years, researchers concerned with the quality of undergraduate education have contended that institutional improvement efforts should be designed first and foremost to improve learning (APA, 1997; Boggs, 1995-1996; Cross, 1997; Cross, 1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Huba & Freed, 2000; O’Banion, 1997a; O’Banion, 1997c; Oblinger & Rush, 1997). Contrasting teaching-directed models with learning-centered models of education, O’Banion (1997b) presents his argument for putting “learning for learners” at the center of institutional decision making. For now, the vanguard institutions point to some principal characteristics of learning-centered colleges. . . .

(1) Programs and services create substantive change in individual learners. (2) Learners are engaged as full partners in the learning process, assuming primary responsibility for their own choices. (3) There are as many options for learning as possible. (4) Learners are assisted in forming and participating in collaborative learning activities. (5) The role of learning facilitator is defined by the needs of the learner. (6) All college employees identify with their role in supporting learning. (7) Success is measured by documented, improved, and expanded learning for learners. (p. 2)

As more students turn to online postsecondary education, faculties are rightfully concerned about the quality of web-mediated teaching and learning. Educators want to make the best use of technology (Gallini & Barron, 2001-2002; Gallini, Barron, & Hart, 2000; Jones & Moller, 2002-2003; Krajcik, Soloway, Blumenfeld, & Marx, 1998; Lan, 2001); therefore, support for the online faculty member is essential (Eastmond, Nickel, du Plessis, & Smith, 2000; Lan, 2001). Worley and Chesebro (2002) explain that a web-mediated learning environment is unique and “requires a technological ability, comfort level, and frequency of usage that varies from student to student and accordingly affects the degree and kinds of benefits that individual students can derive” (p. 172). In addition to technology concerns, many online professors seek conversations about the theory and practice of learning in general and online learning specifically (Seels, Campbell, & Talsma, 2003). Sherer and Shea (2002) report that there are a number of questions to which faculty members seek answers:

How do I plan for and manage this expanded classroom environment? How can effective learning activities and assignments be designed to take advantage of the increased opportunities for active learning, developing higher-order thinking skills, and accommodating diverse learning styles? How will learning in my course be enhanced or changed? How will the various out-of-class learning experiences be assessed? What will “participation” mean in this course? How will it be valued? (p. 19)

Web-mediated faculty development is essential to online professors as they answer these important pedagogical questions.

Review of Literature: Building Community

Researchers have found that efforts to improve learning should build community (Gallini & Barron, 2001-2002; Grubb, 1999; McCotter, 2001; Morrissey, 2000; Outcalt, 2000; Seels, Campbell, & Talsma, 2003; Wald & Castleberry, 2000; Williams & Pennington, 2002). Online staff development can bring faculties together, whether they are geographically dispersed or located on traditional campuses (Shea, Sherer, & Kristensen, 2002). Killion (2000) reports that effective online staff development increases collaboration and broadens perspectives, allowing participants to “exchange ideas and resources with their colleagues, engage in collaborative work, and interact with fellow students and the instructor, a mentor, or an online learning coach at virtually any time” (p. 42). To build community, effective institutions recognize and address the needs of both full-time and adjunct faculty members (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Outcalt, 2000; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). Concerned about the efficacy of institutional efforts to integrate part-time faculty, Grubb (1999) found that faculty isolation is a serious obstacle to teaching: “Except in a small number of exemplary institutions, most instructors speak of their lives and work as individual, isolated, lonely. A teacher’s job is a series of classes, with the door metaphorically if not physically closed” (p. 49). Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron (1995) point out that part-time faculty members are critical to “the higher education enterprise – educationally, socially, and economically. For the contributions and the extraordinary potential they bring, part-timers should be acknowledged and treated as valuable citizens of the academic community” (p. 157). Nellis, Hosman, King, and Armstead (2002) found that web-mediated staff development can help faculties work together by addressing perennial problems with face-to-face development, including part-time faculty time and geography constraints.

Mentoring programs promote inclusion, reduce feelings of isolation, and build community by initiating new teachers and providing leadership roles for existing faculty members (Bullard & Felder, 2003; De Jong, Hartman, & Fisher-Hoult, 1994; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Little, 1990; Luna & Cullen, 1992; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995; Seels, Campbell, & Talsma, 2003). Pierce (1998) reports that a mentoring program can increase professionalism by helping participants to build relationships, understand academic models and culture, and develop effective teaching strategies. Edmonson, Fisher, Brown, Irby, and Lunenburg (2002) found that mentors

help new faculty in all phases of their duties in the professorate: teaching, scholarship, and service . . . . mentors assist new faculty in learning the values, the expectations, and the social interactions of the department. Thus, each new faculty member has a constant personal support system in his or her mentor. (p. 11)

Because learning “is influenced by social interactions, interpersonal relations, and communication with others” (APA, 1997), faculty development programs ought to build on the strengths of an institution’s whole professional community.

Review of Literature: Assessing Outcomes

Researchers have found that an institution’s improvement efforts should be designed to help faculty members assess their teaching outcomes and their students’ learning outcomes regularly and continuously to have an effect on institutional culture (Conderman, 2001; Donald & Denison, 2001; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Kerby & Weber, 2000; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). Roueche, Johnson, and Roueche (1997) contend:

College leaders and faculty should set about to determine the most critical activities to which the college should attend (identify critical success factors), to define how the college would know for certain that its mission is being achieved (identify indicators of effectiveness) and to outline a process to improve performance (identify data that will be used to drive decision making – e.g., planning cycles). (p. 187)

However, faculty professional development efforts, particularly for part-time employees, are rarely systemic and, if provided at all, usually happenstance and unmeasured (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Grubb, 1999; Outcalt, 2000). Because “assessing the learner as well as learning progress – including diagnostic, process, and outcome assessment – is an integral part of the learning process” (APA, 1997), staff development programs ought to help teachers to understand and develop personal and institutional assessment processes.

Faculty development efforts, to be effective, should be engaging and motivating (Betts, 1999; Cross, 1997; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995). Describing the importance of faculty motivation to the integration of technology, for example, Lan (2001) found

Motivation seems to be the most critical variable that ultimately transforms the environment and incentive variables into an action. To motivate faculty, technology integration must have a purpose and must be perceived by faculty as valuable and beneficial to their professional or personal practices. (p. 394)

Without motivation, a professional development effort is unlikely to lead to changes in faculty behavior.

The JIU Web-Mediated Faculty Professional Development Program

As the JIU academic leadership team develops and maintains the university’s web-mediated faculty professional development efforts, the team has been mindful of the literature linking staff development to the effectiveness of academic institutions. Because JIU’s faculty is located around the globe, and because the university’s professors ought to re-evaluate approaches to teaching that they have learned in face-to-face environments, the university’s Faculty Development Committee (FDC) developed its own systemic program to help build the institution’s learning infrastructure and community. Faculty members learn from and teach each other about learning in online environments.

The FDC, composed of three academic chairpersons and three appointed faculty members, meets quarterly or as needed to make decisions and plan activities regarding the core functions of JIU’s faculty development efforts. The three authors of this paper have served as FDC members. The university’s development program includes a web-mediated certification program, a faculty showcase, bimonthly faculty meetings, access to professional organizations and conferences, online access to e-Global Library, rigorous faculty assessment, and teaching excellence awards. This systemic approach to faculty development is intended to ensure that the staff’s continuous professional growth leads to competence and satisfaction and, ultimately, to high student achievement and satisfaction.

To become a member of the professional staff, JIU teaching faculty candidates must complete the university’s four-part web-mediated certification program that includes a pre-test, an online course, mentorship, and evaluation. The online, self-paced pre-test is designed to garner information on a prospective faculty member’s content knowledge, online expertise, philosophy about teaching undergraduate and graduate students, and likelihood of success at JIU. The pre-test results are considered in the pre-hiring evaluation process.

The hallmark of JIU’s professional development effort is the university’s web-mediated course, JIU700: Facilitating Online Learning. This month-long course of study serves as an introduction to the university and as an extended discussion about the theoretical, applied, and JIU-specific aspects of online learning. Facilitated by a mentor, the asynchronous course is highly interactive and rigorous and allows faculty members to experience first hand the perspective of an online learner.

The JIU mentoring program requires potential faculty members who have completed JIU700 to observe and analyze a course that is taught by a mentor professor. Mentors, who choose the scope of involvement a protégé will have, are available to answer questions, provide guidance, deconstruct course activities, and so forth. Protégés are required to, at minimum, submit an evaluation of the learning environment, including observations, analysis, and suggestions related to learning, community, and assessment. Mentors are selected from among experienced faculty members who are recognized for their teaching excellence.

Once a candidate earns the JIU faculty certification, the institution recognizes the new faculty member in its online Faculty Showcase. The showcase is designed to honor staff members and communicate to peers and students their qualifications and professional interests, including education, current employment, professional experience, awards, and professional activities.

The FDC facilitates bimonthly faculty meetings during which the faculty explores theoretical and practical issues regarding online pedagogy. While this forum serves to inform the staff about essential program and institutional policies and procedures, the primary purpose of these meetings is to build a thoughtful community of professional educators. Academic chairpersons or teaching faculty members – who earn a stipend – organize meetings on special topics. Recent faculty meeting discussions have developed lines of inquiry regarding assessment theories and practice, learning styles, obstacles to students’ academic achievement, online community building, the teaching of adults and international students, rigor in the academy, web-mediated library research, and other topics.

The JIU academic leadership team considers external professional development, a long-valued element of university staff development programs, essential to a learning faculty. Therefore, the university’s academic chairpersons are funded to join professional organizations and present at conferences. Part-time faculty members may apply for institutional grants to participate in professional organizations, attend conferences, or purchase resource materials. To be awarded a conference grant, a faculty member must write and have approved by the FDC a proposal to present a paper and serve as a representative of JIU. To be reimbursed for membership in a professional organization or for instructional resources, the organization or resources must be related to online learning or the faculty member’s field.

Libraries and resource materials, essential to faculty members as experts in content and as teachers (Fletcher & Stewart, 2001), are available online to JIU’s faculty. The university’s e-Global Library was the first online library designed specifically for student and faculty use. Because JIU’s students and teachers are geographically remote and proficient in information technology, the library is designed to fit the needs and skills of these learners and teachers. Furthermore, because high-quality learning resources are central to the university’s mission, JIU’s librarians conduct faculty tours and online orientations and provide direct instruction to new faculty members. Staff members are taught how to use the library’s wide range of resources and services, including reference assistance and online tutorials that help faculty members navigate e-databases, libraries, and the web; research guides; databases of academic and business articles; electronic books available in full text; government and internet resources that are topically organized; and interlibrary loan and document delivery. Since the ultimate test of a library’s usefulness is whether or not students and staff actually use the resources, JIU’s librarians work with the faculty to weave library assignments into the fabric of coursework.

The university’s academic leadership team recognizes that faculty development processes ought to inform and be informed by assessment. Since the faculty’s primary purpose is to facilitate learning, the team believes that faculty members should be evaluated on the following criteria: their facilitation and leadership of in-course conversations; responsiveness to students; subject matter expertise; specific, timely, and substantive feedback, including the use of assignment rubrics; and effective use of course technology. To measure teacher effectiveness, the institution uses a number of tools to gather evidence, including students’ in-course learning outcomes, students’ end-of-program portfolio outcomes, students’ end-of-course survey results, students’ unsolicited feedback, peer review, and each faculty member’s semiannual self-evaluations.

Reward is important to faculty morale and should be aligned with an institution’s primary goals (Boyer, 1990; Brand, 2000; Cross, 1997; Cross, 2001; Rice, 1996; Richlin, 2001). In an effort to align faculty rewards with the university’s mission, the academic leadership team recognizes high-performing teachers with the JIU Award for Excellence in Teaching, offered once every four months. The FDC designed the award to build community around shared goals and to honor exemplary faculty members.

The JIU web-mediated faculty professional development model has been designed to be effective. The model is grounded in research on institutional effectiveness; the approach is multifaceted and systemic; all aspects are accomplished online and asynchronously; and most important, the program affects learning. Furthermore, the program is affordable, for as Killion (2000) notes, scalable and affordable staff development efforts are more likely to be institutionalized.

The JIU Faculty Professional Development Course – JIU700: Facilitating Online Learning

Faculty professional development is too often ineffectual. In a poorly designed staff development effort, participants attend a solitary session, have few resources available to them, do not contribute to the conversation in meaningful ways, do not reflect on their learning, do not make any changes in their personal behavior or thought processes, and do not improve the institution’s ability to meet the expectations of its mission. Participants have little opportunity or motivation to analyze, synthesize, evaluate, or apply their efforts; in other words, there is little of what is commonly understood to be learning.

Unlike the ineffectual scenario described above, JIU700, the university’s web-mediated faculty professional development course, is designed to have a measurable impact on a faculty member’s contribution to the institution’s efforts. JIU700 expects learners to (1) participate several times per week over the course of two months (one month in class, and one month in mentorship); (2) seek and use resources from a wide range of sources, especially the internet; (3) contribute significantly to the conversation by communicating in an online dialogue and analyzing their peers’ contributions; (4) reflect on and assess their own learning; (5) produce written work that documents their learning outcomes; and (6) draw on their in-course experiences to contribute to the institution’s long-term capacity to achieve its mission.

Participation, essential to all web-mediated learning, is a central tenet of JIU700. Since most of the participants are mature educators who are involved in a variety of academic and professional endeavors, they bring a rich history of teaching and learning experiences to the course. Faculty members, the majority of whom hold doctorates in their content fields, are encouraged and expected to share their professional knowledge and expertise through the asynchronous discussions and activities that are the core of the course. Throughout the program, participants are evaluated on their ability to

• Facilitate web-mediated learning, especially within the JIU framework;
• Assess the strengths and limitations of web-mediated learning;
• Create a web-mediated learning community;
• Design teaching and assessment strategies for the mostly written environment of web-mediated classrooms;
• Use the web to full pedagogical advantage;
• Facilitate web-mediated discussions with adult learners in an international context;
• Apply and analyze principles and methods of assessment and evaluation to web-mediated learning; and
• Develop a personal web-mediated teaching methodology.

Faculty members commit at least five hours per week to complete the four modules.

A team of professionals designed JIU700. The team included external content experts; in-house academic leaders; and the university’s instructional design team, who took written documents and made them cognitively and visually appealing for the web. The course comprises four learning modules on the following subjects: (1) Facilitating Online Learning; (2) Feedback and Grading; (3) Knowledge, Skills, and Proficiencies – How to Evaluate Learning; and (4) Technology, Flexibility, and the Future.

In the first learning module, Facilitating Online Learning, participants explore the “realities that characterize asynchronous learning at a distance.” JIU’s future faculty members attend to the “strategies, approaches, and methodologies involved in facilitating experiences that result not only in high-quality individual learning, but also in the development of course-based learning communities.” In the second module, Feedback, Evaluation, and Grading, participants examine “the role that objectives and assumptions about student capabilities play in developing [JIU’s] strategy for assessing student progress and assigning student grades.” Participants also compare and contrast grading in web-mediated and face-to-face contexts. In the third module, Knowledge, Skills, and Proficiencies – How to Evaluate Learning, participants discuss the importance of assessment design and the basic principles and language of assessment in higher education. Participants learn what students are expected “to know, perform, or be able to” as a result of their JIU experience. In the last module, Technology, Flexibility, and the Future, participants explore “issues related to institutional frameworks, defined schedules, technology – when it works and when it doesn't – and faculty roles in the processes.”

By exploring Jones e-Education Software Standard (JESS) (See Appendix A: Jones e-Education Software Standard, page 43), participants develop skills to use the university’s platform. Offered free of charge as part of university founder Glenn Jones’ effort “to democratize education worldwide,” JESS is an online course management and delivery system. Because it is free of charge, institutions may develop their own web-mediated faculty professional development programs at a very low cost. Faculty members become familiar with JIU’s course design and interface, including the platform’s icons and navigation methods, in-course conversation structure, and content flow.

The literature regarding faculty professional development is clear; a quality program ought to improve a faculty’s ability to facilitate students’ learning, build a community of education professionals, and help the faculty to assess their teaching outcomes and their students’ learning outcomes. The systemic, web-mediated faculty professional development program initiated at JIU was designed to do those things. The authors of this study chose to evaluate the effectiveness of the university’s professional development program by asking the faculty members who have participated for their perceptions.

Method

Participants. Between August 2003 and February 2004, 28 new or continuing JIU faculty members completed the university’s web-mediated faculty professional development course, JIU700: Facilitating Online Learning. Of these staff members, 21 completed JIU700 from their homes in the United States: Arizona (1), California (2), Colorado (5), Florida (3), Georgia (1), Indiana (2), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Ohio (1), Tennessee (1), and Virginia (3). Of the U.S. participants, three were emigrants from Serbia, Czechoslovakia, and Germany. Seven faculty members completed JIU700 from their homes in Brazil (1), Canada (2), India (1), Japan (1), and Mexico (2). Thirteen participants were women; 15 were men. For eight of these faculty members, English was a secondary language. Those who completed JIU700 were asked to participate in this study by completing a survey sent to them by email.

Survey. The authors developed a 12-question survey to elicit the faculty’s perceptions regarding the effectiveness of JIU700 and the JIU web-mediated faculty professional development program (See Appendix B: Questionnaire Survey, pages 44-46). The first four questions asked participants to answer open-ended questions with written subjective evaluations of JIU700. The remaining eight questions asked participants to answer closed questions regarding their subjective evaluations of the university’s professional development program. For the eight closed questions, a seven-point adjectival scale was used. Respondents were given the choice of three negative answers (i.e., 1 = very low extent; 2 = low extent; and 3 = moderately low extent) and three positive answers (i.e., 4 = moderately high extent; 5 = high extent; and 6 = very high extent). A “neutral or no opinion” option was included at the end of each question to encourage respondents to choose a negative or positive position before choosing a non-evaluative position.

The initial survey was mailed to participants in February 2004, and a follow-up survey was mailed to nonresponders in April 2004. The authors sent each participant a personal letter that explained the purpose of the research and asked for cooperation (See Appendix C: Sample Cover Letter, page 47). Recipients of the cover letter and questionnaire survey were informed that (1) the survey should take no more than 15 to 30 minutes to complete; (2) any information obtained that could be identified with them would remain confidential and would be disclosed only with their permission; (3) they were under no obligation to participate in the study; (4) they were not required to answer every question; (5) their decision to participate or not would not affect their future relations with Jones International University; (6) their participation and thoughtful attention to the questionnaire would be appreciated and would be used to help JIU sustain and improve its faculty professional development program; (7) their completion and return of the questionnaire would be taken as evidence of their willingness to participate and their consent to have the information used for purposes of the study; and (8) they could keep a copy of the cover letter and survey. Since faculty members have been asked to present their personal perceptions, the authors understand that similar problems that appear in psychological studies might appear here; i.e., survey respondents might have withheld information or responded in a perceived expected manner.

Results

Of the 28 faculty members who were asked to participate in this study, 23 completed and returned the questionnaire survey: a response rate of 82 percent. The following data report is organized to (1) restate each research question; (2) explain each research question; (3) present the data; and (4) present mean scores when appropriate. Mean scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number to obtain adjectival equivalents.

Research Question 1: Summary of Data. Research Question 1, an open-ended question, asked respondents to briefly describe three significant differences between their face-to-face faculty professional development and their JIU web-mediated faculty professional development experiences. The authors asked this question to find out how, in JIU faculty members’ opinions, JIU700 compared to and contrasted with the faculty’s on-site professional development experiences. In answer to Question 1, 14 participants had experienced face-to-face professional development at other institutions. These faculty members expressed four primary themes. Respondents believed that the JIU web-mediated professional development, when compared to their face-to-face development experiences, (1) was a better learning experience, (2) was a more flexible learning experience, and (3) was a more interactive learning experience. However, some participants claimed to miss the live discussion of a face-to-face learning environment.

Ten respondents believed that the JIU online staff development was a better learning experience. One wrote, “JIU700 was better structured and [more] thought provoking than the face-to-face course.” Another was impressed that “JIU faculty development includes feedback on the faculty members’ mastery of . . . workshop objectives.” Another stated, “The primary difference is the JIU faculty professional development is more focused, scholastic, and professional.” A fourth responded that JIU700 discussions “were richer in number and quality.”

Six participants stated that the web-mediated program offered more flexibility than their face-to-face experiences had. A respondent wrote, “The face-to-face development programs have required in most cases traveling somewhere and leaving normal duties.” Another explained, “There seemed to be more freedom to follow meaningful threads of discussion than is typical in FTF sessions which tend to be agenda-driven and time-oriented.” A third, who had to travel a distance to attend a face-to-face program, complained that he was “cut off from [his] regular work for over three days.”

Another six participants reported that JIU’s web-mediated professional development experience was more interactive than their face-to-face experiences. Respondents found that the JIU experience allowed more attendees to participate in more meaningful ways. One wrote, “Online mediation of faculty members’ relationships facilitates equal access to all members of the development course regardless of status, workload, field, etc.” Another participant discovered that the online experience leveled the playing field for women participants. He wrote,

People dominate discussions – usually men – while others – usually women – get cut out of the discussions and give up trying to contribute. When I’ve led face-to-face meetings, even when I call on nonparticipants, I find that a few people dominate and I practically have to tell them to yield the floor before others can express their views.

A third respondent reported, “Oddly enough, there was a stronger sense of connection with my colleagues in JIU700, probably because we were interacting primarily with each other [rather than] the facilitator.”

Nevertheless, four participants claimed to appreciate the live discussions of their face-to-face professional development experiences. One respondent said that networking “with colleagues and sharing ideas, resources, etc. seems to be a larger focus and more spontaneously generated in face-to-face venues.” Another reported that he “got to know the people personally at the F2F.” A third participant added, tongue in cheek, “We had a continental breakfast and a buffet lunch. I have not figured out how we can add food to our online faculty professional development.”

Research Question 2: Summary of Data. Research Question 2, an open-ended question, asked participants to describe the three elements of JIU700 that have had the most lasting impact on their ability to help JIU’s students learn. While the university’s academic leadership team employs a number of specific methods to measure student learning, the authors asked this question to find out which JIU700 elements, in faculty members’ opinions, have had the greatest effect on their students’ learning. In answer to Question 2, respondents expressed four primary themes. Faculty members reported that JIU700 helped them to (1) understand the culture and tools of an online learning environment; (2) better assess their students’ learning outcomes; (3) facilitate in-course, web-mediated conversations; and (4) network with their fellow faculty members.

Ten participants felt that JIU700 helped them to better understand the culture of a web-mediated learning environment. One wrote, “I gathered more insight into the pedagogy of teaching online.” Another respondent found, “The JIU700 course itself served as a demonstration and model for online teaching.” A third participant explained that it was “helpful to know the philosophical and methodological approaches of the institution.” Still another reported that the in-course discussions about face-to-face and online instruction helped her to “understand how online learning should be approached.” Seven respondents, including experienced JIU faculty members, discovered that JIU700 helped them to better understand and use the institution’s platform and tools.

Significantly, all but three participants claimed that JIU700 helped them to better assess their students’ learning outcomes. Respondents commented that they learned how to set clear course objectives, identify criteria for good writing, create meaningful and helpful rubrics for students, and provide effective feedback on written material. One participant found that the course improved his ability “to get the best out of [students] through motivational comments, coaching, giving feedback, and well-developed evaluation criteria.” Another wrote, “I believe rubrics can have a lasting impact on my ability to help JIU’s students learn, because they will help me assess complex performances in a more accurate and understandable way.” A third reported, “I think that the course establishes a common level of expectations among the faculty [regarding] student academic achievement and performance.” Another respondent said, “The instructor also encouraged self-assessment, which encouraged me to examine my own learning for each of the modules. I believe that a modified version of this would also enhance student learning.” The majority responded that the JIU700 rubrics exercises helped them to assess their students’ learning outcomes; one respondent wrote that she appreciated a “framework for evaluating student papers.” Another stated that the development of a rubric “was the operational tool I needed to help me better communicate expectations about the course and to help me in grading.” Eleven participants discovered that JIU700 helped them to facilitate in-course, web-mediated conversations. Several explained, as this respondent did, that JIU700

puts JIU faculty (especially the new ones who may not have had any previous experience in teaching online) in the position of an online student. This is a very useful, hands-on experience that makes the faculty better understand issues and challenges that online students may have.

One participant found that the course helped him to “keep a conversation alive in the forum.” Another said that the “initial community building session encouraged all participants to become engaged in the course.” A respondent appreciated that the course served as a model for how to facilitate an online conversation; she wrote, “The way the forum discussions evolved was a very good example of what a forum should be and how an instructor should participate.”

Furthermore, seven respondents claimed that the opportunity to network with faculty peers helped them to become better at their profession. One participant reported that he enjoyed learning “from experienced faculty” who participated in the course. Another appreciated “getting information from colleagues about other resources.” A third respondent discovered that the “opportunity to draw from the experience of colleagues” helped her facilitate learning. Another added, “The course has provided an environment for all JIU faculty to meet and get to know each other better. It is very important for building a professional community.”

Research Question 3: Summary of Data. Research Question 3, an open-ended question, asked respondents to suggest additions to JIU700 to improve the faculty’s ability to help students learn. The authors asked this question to find out, in JIU faculty members’ opinions, what the university’s academic leadership team might do in the future to improve the institution’s professional development program. In answer to Question 3, participants expressed five primary themes. Faculty members reported that they would like JIU700 to include (1) more information on the technology and tools of online learning, (2) additional community-building efforts, (3) more information on ways to increase students’ participation, (4) additional case studies that showcase students’ concerns and problems, and (5) more information about helping students to become better writers.

Eight respondents reported that they would like JIU700 to include more information on the technology and tools of online learning. One participant wrote that she would like to better understand the “use of new technologies, [especially] sound-recorded feedback and whiteboards.” Another requested additional “examples of teaching tools.” A third faculty member said that she would like more information on mixing media to better facilitate courses.

Four participants thought that additional interaction with their JIU colleagues would improve their ability to facilitate learning. One wrote, “I would have liked to have had more interaction with my colleagues.” Another wanted to know more about ways to connect with other faculty members; he asked, “What other faculty member can we call on with a specific question? For example, I have extensive knowledge about health care marketing.” Another wanted to know more about her colleagues; she requested,

Have participants share more about what they are going to teach at JIU. . . . I think it would be helpful to create more of a sense of community and to encourage participants in the same field to meet colleagues with whom they may consult in the future.

A fourth respondent wanted to see additional small group work “to build a stronger faculty community that can support our teaching.”

Five faculty members expressed an interest in learning additional ways to increase students’ in-course participation. A participant wrote that he would like to know how “to maintain students’ interest in the [virtual classroom] discussion.” A second gave an example of how she would encourage JIU700 participants to explore students’ participation:

In a course that I teach for another institution, I created two discussion threads [that] demonstrate examples of well-facilitated and poorly facilitated discussions. After reviewing the discussions, course participants engage in their own discussion about good practices in facilitation. Having practical examples to work from would be a wonderful addition to JIU700.

Another respondent explained that she would like tips for “how to use the threads [and] how to encourage students to use them.”

The most common request, from 15 faculty members, was for additional case studies or simulations that showcase students’ concerns and problems as well as teachers’ solutions. Several wanted to visit a volunteer’s course for a number of days to explore and better understand a peer’s in-course methods. Another desired additional web-mediated “teaching situations and problems to practice what is discussed and learned.” One participant added that she would like to explore further “our different techniques of setting up and conducting courses.” Several respondents also wanted to discuss specific examples of crisis management.

Six participants requested more information about ways to help students become better writers. A faculty member claimed that she would like to see more “tools and methods to support better academic writing” added to the course. Another wanted to create “a library to showcase samples of student projects.” A third respondent stated that he would like to explore students’ “views on how those with poor writing skills should be treated.” Yet another wanted to better understand processes “for giving constructive feedback on student writing abilities.”

Research Question 4: Summary of Data. Research Question 4, an open-ended question, asked participants to express additional opinions regarding the university’s faculty professional development program. The authors asked this question to provide an open forum for JIU faculty members to express their desires and complaints about the program. In answer to Question 4, participants expressed two primary themes. One of the themes was already made evident in their answers to Question 2; respondents appreciated the exploration of methods to better assess their students’ learning outcomes.

The second theme, though, developed from faculty members’ holistic view of the university’s faculty professional development program. Eleven participants expressed their support and appreciation for the JIU efforts and showed their desire for additional professional development opportunities. One respondent explained, “I enjoyed JIU700 and would like to see other courses added in the future.” Another enthusiastically added, “I enjoyed the experience immensely and learned a great deal!” A third faculty member responded that the JIU program builds relationships:

I am glad to read the JIU faculty professional development policies. I must convey my appreciation for the quality vision in framing such an important policy. I am sure this will create a stronger bond between the faculty and JIU.

Another wanted the conversation extended to a continuous online discussion. She wrote that she would like to participate in “a permanent forum where experienced and not-so-experienced teaching faculty members can discuss everyday online teaching issues and problems.” Another participant, a professor at a state university, favorably compared the JIU course to other programs: “It is an excellent development program, far superior to what most universities offer to new instructors.”

Research Question 5: Summary of Data. Research Question 5 asked participants to evaluate JIU700 against three criteria. Faculty members were asked if the course (1) improved their ability to help JIU students learn, (2) built a professional community of JIU faculty members, and (3) improved their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes. The authors asked this question to find out whether or not, in JIU faculty members’ opinions, JIU700 accomplished the goals the university’s academic leadership team intended.

In answer to Question 5.1, 90 percent of respondents (19 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.71 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 improved to a “high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn. In answer to Question 5.2, 71 percent of respondents (15 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.25 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 built to a “moderately high” extent a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 5.3, 90 percent of respondents (19 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.00 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 improved to a “high” extent their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.

Research Question 6: Summary of Data. Research Question 6 asked faculty members to evaluate how well their participation in JIU700 helped them meet the 12 expected course outcomes: (1) employ online teaching methods; (2) compare and contrast face-to-face classroom teaching and learning with online teaching and learning; (3) create an online learning community; (4) teach within the mostly written environments of online classrooms; (5) use the internet to pedagogical advantage; (6) gain an understanding of who online students are at JIU; (7) effectively facilitate discussion with adult learners within an international context; (8) apply principles and methods of online teaching to online classrooms through the use of different teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods; (9) apply outcomes-based teaching and evaluation; (10) analyze online teaching methods; (11) analyze and apply tools and processes of evaluation of students’ learning; and (12) gain an understanding of JIU’s focus and philosophy regarding learning assessment and evaluation. The authors asked this question to find out whether or not, in JIU faculty members’ opinions, they learned and were able to apply the course’s expected learning outcomes.

In answer to Question 6.1, 76 percent of respondents (16 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.29 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge of online teaching methods. In answer to Question 6.2, 62 percent of respondents (13 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (3.86 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge about how face-to-face classroom teaching and learning differs from online teaching and learning. In answer to Question 6.3, 62 percent of respondents (13 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.29 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge about how to create an online learning community. In answer to Question 6.4, 86 percent of respondents (18 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.52 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “high” extent, knowledge about how to be effective in the mostly written environments of online classrooms. In answer to Question 6.5, 76 percent of respondents (16 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.19 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge about how to use the internet to pedagogical advantage. In answer to Question 6.6, 62 percent of respondents (13 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (3.86 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge about JIU’s online students. In answer to Question 6.7, 65 percent of respondents (13 of 20) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.10 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain, to a “moderately high” extent, knowledge about how to most effectively facilitate discussion with adult learners within an international context. In answer to Question 6.8, 90 percent of respondents (19 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.81 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them apply, to a “high” extent, principles and methods of online teaching to their classrooms. In answer to Question 6.9, 86 percent of respondents (18 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.62 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them apply—to a “high” extent—outcomes-based teaching and evaluation. In answer to Question 6.10, 67% of respondents (14 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.71 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them analyze to a “high” extent their online teaching methods. In answer to Question 6.11, 90 percent of respondents (19 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.90 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them analyze and apply, to a “high” extent, tools and processes of evaluation of students’ learning. In answer to Question 6.12, 86 percent of respondents (18 of 21) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.14 mean) reported that their participation in JIU700 helped them gain to a “high” extent an understanding of JIU’s focus and philosophy regarding learning assessment and evaluation

Research Question 7: Summary of Data. Research Question 7 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s Faculty Showcase and to what extent the Faculty Showcase builds a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 7.1, 75 percent of respondents (15 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with the university’s Faculty Showcase. In answer to Question 7.2, 54 percent of respondents (7 of 13) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (3.82 mean) believed that the Faculty Showcase builds, to a “moderately high” extent, a professional community of JIU faculty members.

Research Question 8: Summary of Data. Research Question 8 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s academic faculty meetings and if they had participated in or planned to participate in the university’s meetings. Question 8 also asked participants to evaluate the faculty meetings against three criteria. Faculty members were asked if the meetings (1) improved their ability to help JIU students learn, (2) built a professional community of JIU faculty members, and (3) improved their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.

In answer to Question 8.1, 90 percent of respondents (18 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with the university’s faculty meetings. In answer to Question 8.2, 95 percent of respondents (18 of 19) indicated that they had participated in or planned to participate in the university’s faculty meetings. In answer to Question 8.3, 76 percent of respondents (13 of 17) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.35 mean) reported that their participation in faculty meetings improved to a “moderately high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn. In answer to Question 8.4, 82 percent of respondents (14 of 17) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.88 mean) reported that their participation in faculty meetings built, to a “high” extent, a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 8.5, 76 percent of respondents (13 of 17) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.47 mean) reported that their participation in faculty meetings improved to a “ moderately high” extent their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.

Research Question 9: Summary of Data. Research Question 9 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s e-Global Library and if they had used or planned to use the services of the library. Question 9 also asked participants if e-Global Library improved their ability to help JIU’s students’ learn. In answer to Question 9.1, 95 percent of respondents (19 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with the university’s library. In answer to Question 9.2, 85 percent of respondents (17 of 20) indicated that they have used or plan to use the e-Global Library resource. In answer to Question 9.3, 100 percent of respondents (13 of 13) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.38 mean) reported that e-Global Library improved to a “high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn.

Research Question 10: Summary of Data. Research Question 10 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s reimbursement policies for professional organizations and conferences and if they had sought or planned to seek reimbursement. Question 10 also asked participants to evaluate JIU’s commitment to professional organizations and conferences against three criteria. Faculty members were asked if professional organizations and conferences (1) improved their ability to help JIU students learn, (2) built a professional community of JIU faculty members, and (3) improved their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.

In answer to Question 10.1, 60 percent of respondents (12 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with JIU’s reimbursement policies for professional organizations and conferences. In answer to Question 10.2, 60 percent of respondents (12 of 20) indicated that they have sought or plan to seek reimbursement for professional organizations and conferences. In answer to Question 10.3, 100 percent of respondents (11 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.55 mean) reported that their participation in professional organizations and conferences improved to a “very high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn. In answer to Question 10.4, 82 percent of respondents (9 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.33 mean) reported that their participation in professional organizations and conferences built, to a “high” extent, a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 10.5, 100 percent of respondents (11 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.18 mean) reported that their participation in professional organizations and conferences improved to a “high” extent their ability to assess student achievement of learning outcomes.

Research Question 11: Summary of Data. Research Question 11 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s faculty assessment policies and procedures. Question 11 also asked participants to evaluate JIU’s faculty assessment against three criteria. Faculty members were asked if JIU’s faculty assessment (1) improved their ability to help JIU students learn, (2) built a professional community of JIU faculty members, and (3) improved their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.
In answer to Question 11.1, 85 percent of respondents (17 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with JIU’s faculty assessment policies and procedures. In answer to Question 11.2, 100 percent of respondents (15 of 15) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.13 mean) reported that faculty assessment improved to a “high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn. In answer to Question 11.3, 43 percent of respondents (6 of 14) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.18 mean) reported that faculty assessment built, to a “moderately high” extent, a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 11.4, 93 percent of respondents (14 of 15) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (5.07 mean) reported that faculty assessment improved to a “high” extent their ability to assess student achievement of learning outcomes.

Research Question 12: Summary of Data. Research Question 12 asked participants if they were familiar with JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards. Question 12 also asked participants to evaluate JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards against three criteria. Faculty members were asked if Teaching Excellence Awards (1) improved their ability to help JIU students learn, (2) built a professional community of JIU faculty members, and (3) improved their ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes.

In answer to Question 12.1, 60 percent of respondents (12 of 20) indicated that they were familiar with JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards. In answer to Question 12.2, 73 percent of respondents (8 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.89 mean) reported that JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards improved to a “high” extent their ability to help JIU’s students learn. In answer to Question 12.3, 55 percent of respondents (6 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.63 mean) reported that JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards built, to a “high” extent, a professional community of JIU faculty members. In answer to Question 12.4, 64 percent of respondents (7 of 11) indicated a “very high,” “high,” or “moderately high” response. Respondents (4.56 mean) reported that JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards improved to a “high” extent their ability to assess student achievement of learning outcomes.

Summary

The JIU faculty is excited about using the internet medium to facilitate learning. To succeed in the online environment, staff members seek new pedagogical ideas, new facilitation strategies, new communication styles, and new relationships with their peers around the world. The university’s faculty reports that the JIU web-mediated professional development program helps them to (1) understand, apply, and analyze online teaching and learning strategies; (2) facilitate their students’ learning, especially within the mostly written environment of online education; (3) use tools and processes to better assess students’ academic achievement of learning outcomes; and (4) feel connected to the university and to each other. Even when participants of this study point to perceived problems with the program, they request more support, not less. The institution’s faculty knows that they need to grow as professional educators, and they are eager to do so.

The JIU academic leadership team intends for the university’s faculty to have a sound foundation in adult learning theory and its application within an online context. The team wants its staff to use the institution’s learning platform competently, critically engage course content, skillfully manage online discussions, establish and apply rigorous academic standards to student work, and assess course design and content for continuous quality improvement. The team knows and acts on the knowledge that the quality of the university’s faculty is the primary determining factor in student learning and student retention. It is, though, too early to fully assess the impact of JIU’s online professional development program. In the coming years, the academic team would be wise to evaluate the program’s impact on faculty satisfaction and retention and student satisfaction and achievement of learning outcomes. The authors believe this is fertile ground for further research.

The findings of this study are significant because web-mediated professional development will become increasingly important to universities and colleges, not just online institutions. Administrators and teachers, especially those in online learning environments, find it difficult or impossible to conduct face-to-face staff development. Nevertheless, as students move into a continuous learning process in their professional lives, faculties must understand contemporary learning theories and be able to apply effective instructional practices. Online faculty development can be both inexpensive and effective as it meets a faculty’s needs at times and locations that are convenient for participants. More important, online staff development allows academic team members to develop professional competence by connecting with their peers to explore learning – curriculum, instruction, and assessment – and by developing professional relationships.

This exploratory research study was designed to accomplish three purposes. The authors documented within the literature the relationship between faculty professional development efforts and higher education effectiveness; described the systemic, web-mediated faculty professional development program initiated at Jones International University; and provided a descriptive analysis of the effectiveness of the university’s professional development program from the perspectives of its faculty professionals. Consistent with the literature, study participants reinforce the notion that effective faculty development efforts lead to improved student learning and success, broader faculty involvement and sense of community, and more effective assessment of learning outcomes. The authors believe that this ought not be an isolated experience, bound by the virtual walls of JIU; instead, they believe that accessible, efficient, and high quality web-mediated faculty professional development is easily exportable to most institutions of higher learning.

References

American Psychological Association. (1997). "Learner-Centered Psychological Principles
Framework for School Redesign and Reform." [Online document]. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Available: www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html

Ahern, T., & El-Hindi, A. (2000). "Improving the Instructional Congruency of a Computer-
Mediated Small-Group Discussion: A Case Study in Design and Delivery. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(3), pp. 385-400.

Betts, K. S. (April, 1999). "Perceptions vs. Reality: Top 10 Motivators and Inhibitors for
Participating in Distance Education as Viewed by Faculty and Deans at a Research II
Institution." Virtual U Gazette [Online newsletter], 2(4). Available:
www.geteducated.com/vug/archives/vug0499.htm

Boggs, G. R. (1995-1996). "The Learning Paradigm." Community College Journal, 66(3), pp. 24-27.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Brand, M. (November/December, 2000). "Changing Faculty Roles in Research Universities."
Change, 32(6), pp. 42-45.

Bullard, L. G., & Felder, R. M. (Spring, 2003). "Mentoring: A Personal Perspective." College
Teaching, 51(2), pp. 66-69.

Conderman, G. (Fall, 2001). "Program Evaluation: Using Multiple Assessment Methods to Promote
Authentic Student Learning and Curricular Change." Teacher Education and Special
Education, 24(4), pp. 391-394.

Cox, S. A. (2000, November 9-12). "Online Communication Courses: Courses Being Offered and
Practices of Faculty Who Use New Technologies in Instruction." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.

Cross, K. P. (September, 1997). Developing Professional Fitness Through Classroom Assessment
and Classroom Research. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community
College.

Cross, K. P. (July/August, 2001). "Leading-Edge Efforts to Improve Teaching and Learning: The
Hesburgh Awards," 33(4), pp. 31-37.

Cross. K. P. (June, 1998). Opening Windows on Learning. Mission Viejo, CA: League for
Innovation in the Community College.

De Jong, C., Hartman, M., & Fisher-Hoult, J. (1994). "Mentoring New Faculty." Journal of Staff,
Program, and Organization Development, 12(1), pp. 41-49.

Donald, J. G., & Denison, D. B. (July/August, 2001). "Quality Assessment of University Students."
The Journal of Higher Education, 72(4), pp. 478-502.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). "Constructivism: Implications for the Design and
Delivery of Instruction." In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 170-198). New York: Scholastic.

Eastmond, J. N., Nickel, T., du Plessis, J., & Smith, L. D. (April, 2000). "An Incremental
Approach to Implementing a Web Course: The High Points and Pitfalls in North America
and South Africa." TechTrends, 44(3), pp. 40-45.

Eble, K. E., & McKeachie, W. (1985). Improving Undergraduate Education Through Faculty
Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Edmonson, S., Fisher, A., Brown, G., Irby, B., & Lunenburg, F. (Summer, 2002). "Creating a
Collaborative Culture." Catalyst for Change, 13(3), pp. 9-12.

Fletcher, J., & Stewart, D. (Spring, 2001). "The Library: An Active Partner in Online Learning and
Teaching." Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 32(3), pp. 213-221.

Gallini, J. K., & Barron, D. (Winter, 2001-2002). "Participants’ Perceptions of Web-Infused
Environments: A Survey of Teaching Beliefs, Learning Approaches, and Communication."
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 139-156.

Gallini, J. K., Barron, D., & Hart, N. (2000, April). "Online Instruction With Technology Tools for
Active Learning." Paper presented at the American Educational Research Conference, New
Orleans, LA.

Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-Timers
in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but Iinvisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges.
New York: Routledge.

Henry, P. D. (Fall, 2002). "Scholarly Use of the Internet by Faculty Members: Factors and
Outcomes of Change." Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(1), pp. 49-57.

Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses: Shifting
the Focus From Teaching to Learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

International Society for Technology in Education (2000a). National Educational Technology
Standards for Students: Connecting Curriculum and Technology. Eugene, OR: Author in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education.

International Society for Technology in Education (2000b). National Educational Technology
Standards for Teachers. Eugene, OR: Author.

Jones, A. E., & Moller, L. (Fall, 2002/Winter, 2003). "A Comparison of Continuing Education and
Resident Faculty Attitudes Toward Using Distance Education in a Higher Education
Institution in Pennsylvania." College & University Media Review, 9(1), pp. 11-37.

Kerby, D., & Weber, S. (March/April, 2000). "Linking Mission Objectives to an Assessment Plan."
Journal of Education for Business, 75(4), pp. 202-209.

Killion, J. (October, 2000). "Online Staff Development: Promise or Peril?" NASSP Bulletin,
84(618), pp. 38-46.

Krajcik, J., Soloway, E., Blumenfeld, P., & Marx, R. (1998). "Scaffolded Technology Tools to
Promote Teaching and Learning in Science. In C. Dede (Ed.), ASCD Yearbook 1998:
Learning With Technology (pp. 31-45). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Lan, J. (Summer, 2001). "Web-Based Instruction for Education Faculty: A Needs Assessment."
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), pp. 385-399.

Little, J. W. (1990). "The Mentor Phenomenon and the Social Organization of Teaching." In C.
Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in Education. Washington, D. C.: American
Educational Research Association, 1990.

Luna, G., & Cullen, D. L. (Fall, 1992). "Mentoring Women and Minorities: Applications to Higher
Education." Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational Development, 10(3), pp. 133-140.

McCain, T., & Jukes, I. (2001). Windows on the Future: Education in the Age of Technology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

McCotter, S. S. (2001). "Collaborative Groups as Professional Development." Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17, pp. 685-704.

Morrissey, M. S. (2000). Professional Learning Communities: An Ongoing Exploration. Austin,
TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Nellis, P., Hosman, D., King, J. M., & Armstead, C. (2002, Winter). Web-Based Faculty
Development Using Time-Revealed Scenarios. New Directions for Community Colleges,
120, pp. 27-34.

O’Banion, T. (1981). Community College Staff Development Programs for the 80s. Frederick,
MD: Associated Faculty Press.

O’Banion, T. (1997a). A Learning College for the 21^st Century. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

O’Banion, T. (1997b). "The Purpose, Process, and Product of the Learning Revolution in the
Community College." Leadership Abstracts, 11(7).

O’Banion, R. (1997c). "The Learning Revolution: A Guide for Community College Trustees." Trustee
Quarterly, 1, pp. 1-19.

Oblinger, D. G., & Rush, S. C. (1997). The Learning Revolution: The Challenge of Information
Technology in the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co.

Outcalt, C. (Fall, 2000). "Community College Teaching – Toward Collegiality and Community."
Community College Review, 28(2), pp. 57-70.

Pierce, G. (Spring, 1998). "Teaching Teachers: A Model for the Professional Development of New
Faculty." Adult Learning, 9(3), pp. 17-20.

Rice, R. E. (1996). Making a Place for the New American Scholar. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Higher Education.

Richlin, L. (2001). "Scholarly Teaching and the Scholarship of Teaching." In C. Kreber (Ed.), The
Scholarship of Teaching: New Directions in Teaching and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Roueche, J. E., Johnson, L. F., & Roueche, S. D. (1997). Embracing the Tiger: The Effectiveness
Debate and the Community College. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.

Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The At-Risk Student
in the Open-Door College. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.

Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1995). Strangers in Their Own Land: Part-Time
Faculty in American Community Colleges. Washington, D.C.: Community College Press.

Seels, B., Campbell, S., & Talsma, V. (2003). "Supporting Excellence in Technology Through
Communities of Learners." Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), pp. 91-
104.

Shea, T. P., Sherer, P. D., & Kristensen, E. W. (2002). "Harnessing the Potential of Online Faculty
Development: Challenges and Opportunities." In D. Lieberman (Vol. 20, Ed.), To Improve
the Academy. Bolton, MA: Anker.

Sherer, P. D., & Shea, T. P. (Winter, 2002). "Designing Courses Outside the Classroom: New
Opportunities With the Electronic Delivery Toolkit." College Teaching, 50(1) pp. 15-20.

Wald, P. J., & Castleberry, M. S. (2000). Educators as Learners: Creating a Professional
Learning Community in Your School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum
Supervision and Development.

Williams, M. R., & Pennington, K. (2002). "Collaboration in Professional Development." Planning
for Higher Education, 31(1), pp. 39-45.

Worley, D. W., & Chesebro, J. W. (Spring, 2002). "Goading the Discipline Toward Unity:
Teaching Communication in an Internet Environment – A Policy Research Analysis."
Communication Quarterly, 50(2), pp. 171-191.

Appendix A: Jones e-Education Software Standard

Jones e-education:™ the Software Standard™

This free platform is based on 15 years of experience in distributed and online learning as well as valuable feedback from our customers.

• Comprehensive platform: Jones e-education is a freely licensable online learning platform with all the features needed for effective online course delivery, proven capable of supporting tens of thousands of users.
• Ease of implementation: A simple CD installation of the free source code for Jones e-education, hosted on the server of your choice, allows for the quick launch of your online learning program. Courses developed in the authoring tool you select can be uploaded to the platform in a few easy clicks.
• Ease of use: Point-and-click maneuvering offers timesaving administrative tools, intuitive instructor tools, and simple navigating for students.
• Flexibility: Written in PHP, an open-source programming language, the e-education platform easily integrates with other applications and can be customized to your school’s particular needs. In addition, the open design of the platform doesn’t force pedagogy, allowing for the instructional design of your choice.
• Tiered organizational structure: The e-education platform is designed to support a variety of online learning organizational structures, from individual school programs to statewide and consortia initiatives.
• Fully supported and free: the Jones Advisory Group™ and the e-education Users’ Group provide complete support services.

Jones e-education: the Software Standard has all the features and functionality needed for the success of your online learning program--large or small.

And, best of all, the platform license is FREE!

For a demonstration of the Jones e-education free license software and its capabilities, please visit
www.jonesknowledge.com

Appendix B: Questionnaire Survey

Jones International University
Online Faculty Professional Development Questionnaire

*Note: Please be sure to read the JIU Faculty Professional Development Policies and Procedures (included in this email) before answering these questions.

Please answer Questions 1 through 4 with your personal reaction to JIU700, the online faculty professional development course.

Q.1. Have you participated in face-to-face faculty professional development opportunities at colleges/universities other than JIU?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” briefly describe three significant differences between your face-to-face faculty professional development and your JIU faculty professional development.

Q.2. What three elements of JIU700 have had the most lasting impact on your ability to help JIU’s students learn? (If you have not yet taught a JIU course, please predict for the future.)

Q.3. What three elements would you like to see added to JIU700 to impact the faculty’s ability to help JIU’s students learn?

Q.4. Please express any additional opinions you have regarding the JIU Faculty Professional Development Program. (i.e., strengths, weaknesses, missed opportunities, comparison to other development programs, etc.)

Use the following scale to answer Questions 5 through 12. In the left-hand spaces, please write numbers (1 through 7) that correspond to your opinions for each of the following questions.
1 = very low extent
2 = low extent
3 = moderately low extent
4 = moderately high extent
5 = high extent
6 = very high extent
7 = neutral or no opinion

Q.5. To what extent did your participation in JIU700, the online faculty professional development course:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students learn?
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?
_____ Improve your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Q.6. To what extent did your participation in JIU700, the online faculty professional development course, help you meet the following expected course outcomes?
_____ Gain knowledge of online teaching methods.
_____ Gain knowledge of how face-to-face classroom teaching/learning differs from online teaching/learning.
_____ Gain knowledge of how to create an online learning community.
_____ Gain knowledge about how to be effective in the mostly written environments of online classrooms.
_____ Gain knowledge of how to use the Internet to pedagogical advantage.
_____ Gain an understanding of who your online students are at JIU.
_____ Gain an understanding of how to most effectively facilitate discussion with adult learners within an international context.
_____ Apply principles and methods of online teaching to your specific online classrooms through the use of different teaching, assessment, and evaluation methods.
_____ Apply outcomes-based teaching and evaluation.
_____ Analyze your online teaching methods.
_____ Analyze and apply tools and processes of evaluation of students’ learning.
_____ Gain an understanding of JIU’s focus and philosophy regarding learning assessment and evaluation.

Q.7. Are you familiar with JIU’s Faculty Showcase?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent does the Faculty Showcase:
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?

Q.8. Are you familiar with JIU’s academic Faculty Meetings that occur every other month?
_____ Yes
_____ No

Have you participated in or do you plan to participate in JIU’s academic Faculty Meetings?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent do the Faculty Meetings:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students’ learn?
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?
_____ Improve your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Q.9. Are you familiar with JIU’s e-Global Library?
_____ Yes
_____ No

Have you used or do you plan to use the services of e-Global Library?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent does e-Global Library:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students’ learn?

Q.10. Are you familiar with JIU’s reimbursement policies for professional organizations and conferences?
_____ Yes
_____ No

Have you sought or do you plan to seek reimbursement for professional organizations and conferences?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent do you believe that professional organizations and conferences:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students’ learn?
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?
_____ Improve your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Q.11. Are you familiar with JIU’s Faculty Assessment policies and procedures?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent do JIU’s Faculty Assessment policies and procedures:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students’ learn?
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?
_____ Improve your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Q.12. Are you familiar with JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards?
_____ Yes
_____ No

If “yes,” to what extent do JIU’s Teaching Excellence Awards:
_____ Improve your ability to help JIU’s students’ learn?
_____ Build a professional community of JIU faculty members?
_____ Improve your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Appendix C: Sample Cover Letter

Dear _____;

We are professors at Jones International University (JIU) in Englewood, Colorado and are conducting a survey designed to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent has the JIU700 online faculty professional development course improved your ability to help students learn?
2. To what extent has the JIU700 online faculty professional development course built a professional community of faculty members?
3. To what extent has the JIU700 online faculty professional development course improved your ability to assess student academic achievement of learning outcomes?

Will you please answer the attached survey and return it to Dr. Paula Noonan at penoonan@juno.com and Dr. Robert Fulton at rfulton@international.edu? This should take no more than 15 to 30 minutes of your time to complete. Any information obtained that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. You are under no obligation to participate in the study, you are not required to answer every question, and your decision to participate or not will not affect your future relations with Jones International University.

Nevertheless, your participation and thoughtful attention to this questionnaire will be greatly appreciated and will help JIU to sustain and improve its faculty professional development program. Your completion and return of the questionnaire will be taken as evidence of your willingness to participate and your consent to have the information used for purposes of the study. You may keep a copy of this letter and of the survey. In addition, once we have your survey responses, will you please allow us to interview you—as needed—concerning these questions?

If you have any questions, you can reach us at the phone numbers below. If you will, please direct your initial questions to Dr. Noonan.

With respect and gratitude,
Bob, Jim, and Paula

Robert W. Fulton
Academic Chair
Jones International University
9697 East Mineral Avenue
Englewood, CO 80112
Direct phone: (303) 784-8498
Toll-free (US only): (800) 811-5663 (ext. 8498)
Fax: (303) 784-8547
Email: rfulton@international.edu
Website: www.jonesinternational.edu

Ph.D. James M. Dorris
B.A. in Business Communication Academic Chair, M.B.A.
Jones International University
9697 East Mineral Avenue
Englewood, CO 80112
Direct phone: (303) 784-8244
Toll-free (US only): (800) 811-5663 (ext. 8244)
Fax: (303) 784-8547
Email: jdorris@international.edu
Website: www.jonesinternational.edu

Paula E. Noonan
7140 S. Depew
Littleton, CO 80123
Direct phone: (303) 932-0716
Fax: (303) 904-0619
Email: penoonan@comcast.net