evaluation of faculty membersâ€™ desired training in online and

1

Running head: DESIRED TRAINING IN ONLINE AND BLENDED LEARNING

Evaluation of Faculty Members’ Desired Training in Online and Blended Learning

Erin Wolfram

The University of Kansas

DESIRED TRAINING IN ONLINE AND BLENDED LEARNING 2

Abstract

As online and blended learning continues to grow in higher education, appropriate

training for faculty members is necessary for universities to provide effective online and blended

learning courses. In order to train faculty members in such learning environments, faculty

members need to be willing to attend necessary training. This paper evaluates faculty members’

from a major Research I university in the Midwest educational technology skill levels, their

awareness of certain educational technology tool availability and trainings, and their desired

training methods and lengths of training. The results provide insight that offers suggestions for

future offerings of educational technology tools and trainings in online and blended learning.


Evaluation of Faculty Members’ Desired Training in Online and Blended Learning

Online education in higher education has continually grown over the past several years.

The results of a survey by Elaine Allen and Jeff R. Seaman (2007) report nearly 3.5 million

students were enrolled in at least one online class during fall 2006. This is a significant growth

from the 1.6 million students enrolled in at least one online class in fall 2002. Leslie Pagliari,

David Batts, and Cheryl McFadden (2009) say this significant growth in online education

requires institutions to make sure their faculty members receive appropriate training in online

teaching; however, in order to do this effectively, it is necessary to assess training on best

practices in teaching online courses that is currently available to faculty members. However,

Pagliari, Batts, and McFadden (2009) further state that even when training is offered faculty

members are often not taking advantage of the professional development opportunities provided

to them. This is why it is important to additionally assess faculty members’ needs and desires in

regards to training.

With this continued growth of online education, Randy Wiesenmayer, Lori Kupczynski,

and Phil Ice in “The Role of Technical Support and Pedagogical Guidance Provided to Faculty in

Online Programs: Considerations for Higher Education Administrators” (2008) explain higher

education administrators are finding it difficult to deal with the changes necessitated by online

education coupled with the need for resources. Additional struggles exist related to faculty buy-

in and training, which are also needed to effectively teach online learners and meet their needs. If

online learning is either not offered or online learners are not satisfied, this will likely deter

enrollment and affect retention within institutions.


Administrators often face further challenges when institutional goals related to online

education ask individual faculty members to apply their familiar course content and teaching

strategies in an unfamiliar and often uncomfortable, online learning environment. Appropriate

training can assist in alleviating this latter challenge (Wiesenmayer, Kupczynski, & Ice, 2008).

Puzziferro and Shelton (2008) explain an online course development model that provides a

common framework for consistency, design, pedagogy and content can be, especially, beneficial.

Many approaches and strategies exist for training faculty members. Because of this, it can

be difficult to know which training options to provide. Georgina & Hosford (2009) state studies

have found technology training needs should be as individualized as the faculty members

themselves, and individual departmental cultures should be taken into consideration before

training is developed (Georgina & Hosford, 2009). Patricia D. Wolf in “Best Practices in the

Training of Faculty to Teach Online” (2006) states online teaching is often a new teaching model

that involves a number of different skills than in-person teaching. If well thought out and

organized training programs are not provided and utilized by faculty members, online education

programs will not be effective. In addition, without these intentional training programs,

institutions will not be able to compete with other institutions--which do have such programs to

appropriately train their faculty members--in attracting students.

Several recent studies have assessed perceived barriers by faculty members toward online

education. The top five barriers, listed in order of most to least prevalent, identified by faculty

members in these studies are lack of technical support, lack of technical skills, release time for

training and preparation (lack of time in general), increased workload, and compensation (Berge,

Muilinburge, & Van Haneghan, 2002; Dooley & Murphrey, 2002; Lin, Dyer, & Guo, 2009;

Panda & Mishra, 2007; Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007). Four out of five of these barriers


directly relate to training or lack thereof. In order to help overcome these barriers and ensure

quality online education within institutions, it is important to identify faculty members’ needs

and wants in reference to online teaching professional development to help encourage

participation and optimal skill development in efficient and effective ways.

Literature Review

A review of recent literature from articles written since 2002 indicated little research has

been done to specifically identify faculty members’ desires in regards to training related to online

and/or blended learning. By exploring articles that did assess faculty members’ desired training,

it was discovered that the studies focused primarily on the desired training for online learning—

three of the studies focused on training desires related, specifically, to online learning, and one

looked at both online and blended learning. Four studies comparable to the study presented in

this paper were found from 2003, 2008, and 2009; the results are as follows. All studies

involved higher education instructors teaching in a post-secondary institution (i.e. community

college, college, or university). Several other articles were read and reviewed but were found not

to involve comparable studies or participants, or the studies occurred prior to 2002 (Frey &

Donehue, 2003; Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008; Pagliari, Batts, & McFadden, 2009; Georgina &

Hosford, 2009).

Barbara A. Frey and Ross Donehue (2003) conducted a study at the Community College

of Allegheny County in Western Pennsylvania to evaluate the skills differentiation between

where faculty members were and where they desired to be in regards to Web and computer

technologies. Results are presented in “Making the Transition from Traditional to Cyberspace


Classrooms.” The paper and pencil survey was provided to 490 full-time faculty members via

their faculty mailboxes—101 surveys were completed, which is a response rate of 21%.

The survey assessed faculty members’ technology skills in formulating, teaching, and

managing instructions. Additionally, the survey also looked at how computer technology was

used in faculty members’ research, communication, and professional development, as well as the

software programs most frequently used and the comfort levels in using those programs (Frey &

Donehue, 2003).

Based on the results, the researchers indicate the greatest importance in planning future

trainings would be the foundation programs or technologies in which faculty members have a

need but possess low skills, comfort, and/or frequency of use. Specifically, the survey

implications show trainings in presentation software such as PowerPoint and graphics software

may be helpful to implement. Additionally, the study helped the researchers come up with

further recommendations such as trainings should be offered at various days, times, and locations

to accommodate faculty members’ busy schedules, and faculty members should be better

informed of trainings via Web sites, newsletters, email, brown bag lunches, and announcements

by departmental chairpersons to, potentially, increase training attendance (Frey & Donehue,

2003).

Ann Taylor and Carol McQuiggan (2008) in the article “Faculty Development

Programming: If We Build It, Will They Come?” administered an online survey with Penn State

University faculty members who had taught at least one completely online course through the

University’s World Campus. The survey evaluated the faculty members’ professional

development experiences and needs related to online teaching via 32 items in three parts: online


teaching experiences, professional development experiences, and demographics. Two hundred

sixty faculty members were emailed the survey; 68 useable surveys were returned. The data

demonstrates that the faculty members who completed the survey reflected the general faculty

population at the Penn State World Campus in regards to employment status, age, tenure status,

and sex.

In regards to resources faculty members were already using to develop and teach online

courses, they reported that instructional designers and colleagues who were experienced in

online teaching were most beneficial. For future assistance, faculty members indicated most

often they would prefer to have access to technical advice and support, instructional design

assistance and resources, and colleagues with experience teaching online (Taylor & McQuiggan,

2008).

In response to desired professional development format, faculty members most often

preferred informal or self-paced learning. Self-paced materials were desired most often (42.6

percent), followed by face-to-face events (41.2 percent), and informal online events (33.8

percent). Additionally, faculty members reported the most beneficial elements of professional

development events related to online teaching included opportunities to share actual experiences

with colleagues, occasions to use technologies such as the university’s course management

system, and the accessibility to specific examples and approaches (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008).

When asked to identify their preferred learning method for online teaching professional

development activities, most preferred one-on-one development with a mentor or colleague,

followed by one-on-one experiences with an instructional designer. Specifically, one faculty

member appreciated, “an instructional designer to discuss implication and strategies at each step


of the course development process” (p. 34). However, an interesting contrast to this is faculty

members also indicated the online resources and references, as well as the online self-paced

modules as more effective learning modes than any of the face-to-face options. Out of these

online self-pace modules, the use of online resources and references showed the highest

effectiveness rating in that particular category. Taylor and McQuiggan (2008) suggest these

findings may demonstrate the time constraints confronted by faculty members, especially those

in a Research I institution where research and service are often professed as more respected

professionally than teaching (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008).

Research question 3 in Taylor and McQiggan’s (2008) study asks “Do online faculty

prefer certain lengths of professional development experiences?” (p. 34). Faculty members’

responses show a willingness to spend time in a series of one day or less workshops over several

weeks (20.6%), in a single one day workshop (19.1%), and with self-paced resources accessible

as needed (16.2%).

Leslie Pagliari, David Batts, and Cheryl McFadden (2009) conducted a study with online

faculty members who taught at two-year institutions with the intention of promoting change in

order to promote successful achievement from students in an online learning environment. The

study evaluated if provided training opportunities were utilized by faculty members and which

actual practices were being carried out in online courses. The researchers emailed an online

survey to a sample of 60 faculty members from technology-oriented programs across the United

States. Twenty-two usable responses were received. However, the results presented in the paper

“Desired Versus Actual Training for Online Instructors in Community Colleges” focus on


responses from online faculty members from the North Carolina Community College System

only.

The results indicate that 40.7% of respondents did not participate in any off-campus

training concerning online training in the past year, and 44.4% did not participate in any on-

campus training concerning online training in the past year. Those who did attend off-campus

training most often participated in conferences (25.9%), the use of printed materials (18.5%),

regular discussion sessions among peers (18.5%), and web-based tutorials (18.5%). Those who

utilized on-campus training most often participated in training (definition not provided) (25.9%),

printed materials (18.5%), group sessions (11.1%), and regular discussion sessions among peers

(11.1%) (Pagliari, Batts, & McFadden, 2009).

In “Higher education faculty perceptions on technology integration and training” David

Georgina and Charles Hosford (2009) explain their research study that looked at faculty

members’ perceptions of their technological capabilities and pedagogical practices to better

understand the relationship between these two constructs. The non-experimental study was

conducted via an original online survey given to a random sample of higher education faculty

members from fifteen doctorate-granting institutions similar to the University of North Dakota

(A pilot study was conducted prior at the University of North Dakota.). One thousand one

hundred fifteen faculty members were sent an email with the URL of the survey. The response

rate was 21.2%.

The results indicate 50.4% of faculty members participated in University-sponsored

trainings to some extent. Georgina and Hosford (2009) explain this low attendance may be

explained by the preference by only 34.4% of the respondents to teach in a traditional classroom


without use of technology and a preference by only 25% of the participants to teach in a blended

classroom. In reference to research question one, “What is the correlation among training

strategies and pedagogical practices?” Pearson correlations indicated two training strategies were

related to pedagogical design practices: small group faculty forums with trainers and on my own

time with tutorials. However, no correlation was found between these two training strategies and

pedagogical delivery practices (Georgina & Hosford, 2009).

Research question two asked “What is the effect of total years teaching on the integration

of technology when controlling for faculty training?” The results suggested that training of

faculty members was not related to the integration of technology in their classes. Research

question three, “Is there a relationship between years of teaching and reported proficiency using

computer hardware and software?” garnered these results: faculty members who had been

teaching 1-5 years felt more proficient with newer technologies that involved both hardware and

software. However, the results from this question also showed that very few faculty members felt

proficient in creating and working with web pages. Faculty members also reported their preferred

manners of learning new computer-based technologies as small group faculty forums with

trainers (56%) and asking colleagues (52%) (Georgina & Hosford, 2009).

This review of four comparable studies provides a historical basis for research on faculty

members’ desired training in online learning and demonstrates results discovered within similar

settings. In evaluating the current study, the results from these past studies provide comparison

data.


Methodology

This non-research study focused on desired training in online and/or blended learning of

faculty members at a major Research I institution, The University of Kansas. The survey

determined faculty members’ current knowledge of and use of technologies in their teaching, as

well as their current knowledge of and use of free technology and free technology trainings made

available to them by the University. In addition, the survey assessed faculty members’ desired

training platforms and training lengths.

To explore these topics an original survey was developed based on the known

technologies and technology trainings made available to faculty members through two campus

offices: Information Technology and Center for Online and Distance Learning. The survey was

administered via email which included the URL to the online survey. One thousand six hundred

eighty-five faculty members were emailed the survey. The findings are intended to provide

information to assist in developing and increasing awareness of future faculty technology

trainings and making decisions regarding future free technology offerings.

Research Design: For this study, an online survey instrument was used to collect information

regarding faculty members’ knowledge, use, and comfort levels with technology in general;

faculty members’ knowledge, use, and comfort levels with specific free technology offered to

faculty through the University; faculty members’ awareness of and participation in currently

offered technology trainings; and faculty members’ desires in regards to future technology

trainings. The purpose of the study was to evaluate these constructs and use the information to

make suggestions for future technology trainings and educational tools for faculty members’ use

in their classes.


The survey was developed using the online survey software Qualtrics. Qualtrics allows

the development of questions and answers in various standard formats that can elicit single

response or multiple response answers. Qualtrics also organizes the data to assist with analysis.

The sample, which included faculty members of all academic and employment levels, as

well as disciplines, was determined by the faculty members whose email addresses were part of a

faculty distribution list housed at the University’s career center. An email with the URL to the

online survey was sent to 1,685 potential respondents with an explanation of the study and its

purpose, as well as a statement explaining the voluntary nature of the survey. Information was

also provided that clarified survey responses would be anonymous. The potential respondents

were given twelve days to complete the survey. A total number (n) of 157 acceptable surveys

were collected for a response rate of 9.3%.

Results

The results of the quantitative data were analyzed via tables and graphs generated

through the Qualtrics software. The average age of responders was 53 years old, and their

average years of teaching at the college level was 21 years.

For the purpose of the survey, the term “online learning” was defined as a learning

environment that is entirely online; “blended learning” was defined as a learning environment

that has a combination of face-to-face and online learning environments; and “training” was

defined as the instruction of a person or thing that is being taught the skills necessary to develop,

implement, and maintain an online or blended learning environment (Dictionary.com). Fifty-

seven percent of the participants selected they did not have any previous experience with online


or blended learning as an instructor or student; 30% indicated previous experience with online or

blended learning as an instructor, with 16% stating they had taught at least one class completely

online and 30% indicating that had taught at least one course in a blended learning environment.

In regards to being trained in online or blended learning instruction, 60% of the

participants indicated they did not have any experience with training in online or blended

learning. The second highest response with a rate of 26% was participation in face-to-face group

training at the college/university in which he/she is/was a faculty member or instructor. See

Table 1 for complete data.

Table 1

Question 6: What is your previous personal experience with being trained in online or blended

learning? (Check all that apply.)


Answer n %

No previous experience with being trained on online or blended learning 84 60%

Took a course as part of my undergraduate or graduate degree that provided

information on how to teach an online or blended learning course

1 1%

Participated in face-to-face group training at a college/university in which I was/am a

faculty member or instructor

37 26%

Participated in online training at a college/university in which I was/am a faculty

member or instructor

11 8%

Attended professional development training outside of a college/university in which I

work(ed) (i.e. conference, workshop, etc.)

16 11%

Participated in one-on-one individualized training at a college/university in which I

was/am a faculty member or instructor

24 17%

Participated in online or blended learning training not listed here 15 11%

The participants were asked to rate their confidence in teaching an online or blended

learning course without any training. A Likert scale was used, with 1 being not confident and 5

being very confident. Forty-three percent of the faculty members stated they are not confident in

teaching an online or blended learning course without any training; 22% indicated they are

somewhat confident, and only 12% indicated they are very confident in teaching an online or

blended course without any training. The responses from this question show a mean confidence

scale of 2.27, variance of 2.01, and standard deviation (SD) of 1.42. Table 2 shows the full

response data.


Table 2

Question 7: On a scale from 1-5, with 1 being not confident and 5 being very confident, rate your

level of confidence in teaching an online or blended learning course without any training.

Answer n %

1 56 43%

2 29 22%

3 14 11%

4 16 12%

5 15 12%

Respondents were asked to rate their confidence in teaching an online or blended learning

course with training. A Likert scale was also used to assess this, with 1 being not confident and 5

being very confident. The results indicated that only 12% do not feel confident in teaching an

online or blended course with training, while 70% of participants stated they feel confident or

very confident in teaching an online or blended course with training. The mean value for this

question is 3.72, the variance is 1.80, and the standard deviation is 1.34. Table 3 demonstrates

the results.

Table 3

Question 8: On a scale from 1-5, with 1 being not confident and 5 being very confident, rate your

level of confidence in teaching an online or blended course with training.


Answer n %

1 14 12%

2 10 9%

3 10 9%

4 42 36%

5 40 34%

The skills level in regards to certain educational technologies was also assessed. Faculty

members rated their highest skill level in use of Web Search Engines (Google, Yahoo, bing, etc.)

with a mean rating of 4.40 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no experience and 5 being very

skilled, followed by use of Microsoft Office Word with a mean rating of 4.38, email programs

(Microsoft Outlook, Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.) with a mean rating of 4.30, and learning

management systems (Blackboard, Moodle, Edmodo, etc.) with a mean rating of 3.59. Table 4

shows the data for this question.

Table 4

Question 9: How skilled are you at using these educational technologies?

Item Mean Variance SD

Learning Management System (Blackboard, Moodle, Edmodo, etc.) 3.59 0.91 0.96

Microsoft Office PowerPoint 4.10 1.07 1.04

Microsoft Office Word 4.38 0.63 0.79

Email programs (Microsoft Outlook, Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc.) 4.30 0.62 0.79


Web Search Engines (Google, Yahoo, bing, etc.) 4.40 0.68 0.83

Electronic Bulletin Boards 2.59 1.78 1.33

Web editors (HTML editor, Dreamweaver, etc.) 2.11 1.50 1.23

Content Management System or non-HTML based Website Building

Program (Drupal, Weebly, WordPress, etc.)

1.79 1.58 1.26

Smart Board 1.62 1.23 1.11

Web Camera 2.43 1.67 1.29

Video Creation/Editing Program (Windows Movie Maker, iMovie,

Final Cut Pro, etc.)

2.03 1.52 1.23

Online Tutorial or Presentation Video Creation Program (Jing, Screenr,

BrainShark, Screen-O-Matic, Voice Thread)

1.46 1.00 1.00

Audio Recording Program (Audacity, Garage Band, etc.) 1.90 1.52 1.23

Podcast Creation 1.47 0.97 0.98

Survey Creation Program (Survey Monkey, Qualtrics, etc.) 2.25 1.77 1.33

In addition to skill levels related to use of educational technology tools, awareness and

use of free technology tools provided by The University of Kansas were also assessed. The

educational tools indicated by faculty members as those in which they are most aware are

Blackboard (82%), video cameras (58%), audio recording equipment (54%), and Adobe Connect

online conference program (40%). These four tools were also indicated as the most commonly

used tools. However, the data may be skewed as 82% of faculty members indicated they are

aware of the free Blackboard course manage program, while 87% indicated use of Blackboard


(See first item in Table 5.). Those who use Blackboard have to be aware of it; therefore, the

awareness percentage in regards to Blackboard, logically, should be higher. Complete data is

demonstrated in Table 5. In addition, faculty members’ confidence scales related to use of these

educational technology tools were also collected using a 5 point Likert scale with 1 being not

confident and 5 being very confident. Faculty members rated Blackboard with a mean of 3.91 as

the tool in which they are most confident, followed by video cameras (3.20), audio recording

equipment (3.03), and Qualtrics survey generator (2.37). See Table 6 for full data.

Table 5

Question 10: Educational Technology Tools—Check all in which you are aware are available: /

Check all you have used:


Item Aware of: n % Have used: n

N

%

Blackboard 130 82% 137 87%

Final Cut Pro 34 22% 16 10%

Video Cameras 91 58% 61 39%

Audio Recording Equipment 85 54% 51 32%

Soft Chalk 52 33% 21 13%

Voice Thread 44 28% 11 7%

Qualtrics Survey Generator 50 32% 22 14%

Adobe Connect Online Conference Program 63 40% 30 19%

ChemOffice Ultra 19 12% 7 4%

Respondus (Exam Creator) 22 14% 8 5%

Table 6

Question 11: Confidence Scale—How confident are you at using these education technologies

available to you through The University of Kansas?


Item Mean Variance SD

Blackboard 3.91 1.21 1.10

Final Cut Pro 1.94 1.77 1.33

Video Cameras 3.20 1.84 1.36

Audio Recording Equipment 3.03 1.97 1.40

Soft Chalk 2.15 2.28 1.51

Voice Thread 1.69 156 1.25

Qualtrics Survey Generator 2.37 2.24 1.50

Adobe Connect Online Conference Program 2.20 2.14 1.46

ChemOffice Ultra 1.56 1.40 1.18

Respondus (Exam Creator) 1.68 1.49 1.22

Perceived importance of training faculty members on online or blended learning was also

measured. Seventy-nine percent of participants indicated training faculty members on online or

blended learning is important (35%) or very important (44%). The mean for this question is 3.98,

the variance is 1.57, and the standard deviation is 1.25. Table 7 provides the distribution of

answers.

Table 7

Question 14: On a scale from 1-5, with 1 being not important and 5 being very important how

important do you think training faculty members/instructors on online or blended learning is?


Answer %

1 8%

2 9%

3 4%

4 35%

5 44%

Since many training programs and resources are already in place at the target institution,

awareness and usage of these programs and resources was evaluated. The training programs and

resources indicated by faculty as those in which they are most aware are face-to-face training

group one-time workshops (55%), the lunch and learn technology workshop series (51%),

instructional design and media development individualized support (45%), and virtual service

desk (online help request system) (44%). See full data in Table 8.

Table 8

Questions 12 and 13: Online and Blended Learning Training Resources—Check all in which you

are aware are available: / Check all in which you have participated:


Item Aware of:

(n)

% Have participated:

(n)

%

Face-to-face training group one-time workshop 87 55% 58 37%

Technology users group meeting 53 34% 23 15%

Lunch & Learn technology workshop series 80 51% 28 18%

Virtual Service Desk (Online help request system) 69 44% 36 23%

Online videos from faculty on how they have used technology

in classes.

32 20% 9 6%

Online course tours & demos of hybrid courses 44 28% 12 8%

Online best practices demos 35 22% 7 5%

Course development one-on-one consultations 65 41% 21 13%

Instructional design & media development individualized

support

70 45% 28 18%

Additionally, faculty members’ preferred training methods and resources were assessed.

Thirteen percent of respondents indicated they feel confident enough transitioning to an online or

blended class on their own without any training. However, the most sought training methods and

resources represented in the survey are individualized one-on-one, face-to-face training sessions,

as needed (56%); a set at your own pace online training program with how-to videos, training

modules, quizzes, resource links, etc. (45%); a two day comprehensive face-to-face training

program (43%); scheduled year-round group workshops on various elements of online or

blended learning, in which faculty members/instructors can sign up on an as needed or as

interested basis (36%); and a combination of a set your own pace online training program and a

two day face-to-face training program (36%). See data in Table 9


Table 9

Question 15: Potential Online and Blended Learning Training Options—Check all in which you

feel you would be most likely to participate:


Item

Most likely to

participate in:

(n)

%

None: I feel confident enough in transitioning to an online or blended

class on my own.

20 13%

Week long comprehensive face-to-face training program 19 12%

Two day comprehensive face-to-face training program 68 43%

Scheduled year-round group workshops on various elements of online

or blended learning, in which faculty members/instructors can sign up

on an as needed or as interested basis

57 36%

A set your own pace online training program with how-to videos,

training modules, quizzes, resource links, etc.

70 45%

A combination of a set your own pace online training program and a

week-long face-to-face training program

21 13%

A combination of a set your own pace online training program and a

two day face-to-face training program

57 36%

Ongoing once a month face-to-face training workshops 31 20%

Individualized one-on-one, face-to-face training sessions, as needed 88 56%

Instant chat immediate response assistance, as needed 45 29%

Ongoing, once a month demonstrations of what other faculty

members/instructors are doing in regards to online and blended

37 24%


learning

Ongoing, once a month technology users discussion group to share

ideas and challenges and learn from each other

16 10%

Website, blog, or wiki with how-to videos and documents and

examples of other faculty members’/instructors’ use of technology

49 31%

Website, blog, or wiki with a discussion board for faculty

members/instructors to share ideas and challenges and support each

other

25 16%

A Facebook group or LinkedIn group for faculty members/instructors

to share ideas and challenges and support each other

13 8%

An email listserv for faculty members/instructors to share ideas and

challenges and support each other

31 20%

Implications and Conclusions

This study provides insight into faculty members’ awareness, use, and preferences in

regards to educational technology tools and training in online and blended education at one

major Research I institution. The results demonstrate few faculty members are currently teaching

in online or blended learning environments and a majority of the respondents (60%) have not had

any previous experience with training in online or blended learning. However, while only 12% of

the faculty members stated they feel confident in teaching an online or blended class without any

training, 70% indicated they believe they would feel confident or very confident teaching an

online or blended course if they received training. In addition, 79% of the faculty members said


they feel training faculty members in online or blended learning is important or very important.

These results show the importance of training faculty members in online or blended learning and

making sure they are aware of the resources and trainings available to them.

It appears many faculty members do not even know about a majority of educational

technology tools (See Table 5.) and trainings (See Table 8.) that do exist. Those who are aware

of the educational tools primarily seem to be taking advantage of Blackboard Course

Management System, used by 87.3% of the participants. A significant drop in usage is seen in

the next most highly used educational technology tool Final Cut Pro with only 39% indicating

usage followed by video cameras with 32%. Most tools are only being used by 5-19% of faculty

members.

Some of this lack of use may be due to the nature of the tool, as some such as

ChemOffice Ultra are most appropriate for those faculty members teaching science based

courses. Many such as Soft Chalk, Voice Thread, and Adobe Connect, however, would be

applicable to all fields. This data demonstrates a need for better outreach to faculty members to

inform them more effectively about the available educational technology tools and how they can

be used in their courses. Better outreach regarding available tools may then lead to further

participation in current trainings in such tools.

Many of the respondents indicated they are not aware of several of the current online and

blended learning trainings that existed at the time of the survey. Face-to-face one-time group

workshops were recognized by the majority of participants (55%), followed by the Lunch &

Learn workshop series (51%), while the other trainings listed were known by only 20-45% of

respondents. More notably, despite faculty members’ apparent perception of importance in


online and blended learning training, most of the participants have not participated in trainings

being offered at the institution. While 37% of the respondents have attended a face-to-face group

one-on-one training, the other trainings listed have only been attended by 5-23% of the faculty

members. Interestingly 56% of the faculty members indicated preference for individualized one-

on-one training sessions, as needed; however, only 18% have actually participated in such

training. More notably the two training preferences selected by faculty members following

individualized one-on-one training sessions are a set your own pace online training program with

how-to videos, training modules, quizzes, resource links, etc. and a two day comprehensive face-

to-face training program, neither of which, as far as content on the University’s website

indicates, are currently available at the institution. Additionally, the next most sought training

selected is a combination of a set your own pace online training program and a two day face-to-

face training program.

These findings related to training faculty members in online or blended learning indicate

more outreach also needs to be conducted to more effectively inform faculty members about

available trainings, and it is recommended that a two day comprehensive face-to-face training

program and/or a set your own pace online training program with how-to videos, training

modules, quizzes, resource links, and so on be considered for development and implementation

at the University. The data indicates the need for training faculty members in online and blended

learning is present. With more effective outreach and a few training considerations, more faculty

members may be willing to attend trainings and attempt more implementation of educational

technology tools, which should assist in more effective development and implementation of

more online and blended learning courses.


Limitations

Though this study does provide some insight into awareness, usage, and preferences of

faculty in reference to educational technology tools and online and blended learning trainings,

the study does have its limitations. First, the survey response rate was only 9.3% with an n of

157—a small portion of the faculty members who teach at the University of Kansas. Georgina

and Hosford (2009) report, historically, typical direct mail survey response rates have been more

than 30%, while online or web-based response rates have often been between 20.5% and 21%.

The response rate for this survey was significantly lower than either statistic. Email addresses

available for the study were gathered from a database that may have included addresses for

faculty members who had retired or left the University for other reasons. This could have

contributed to the low response rate.

Additionally, the survey included definitions for “online learning,” “blended learning,”

and “training.” The definition used for “blended learning” may have been too ambiguous, as

“blended learning” can encompass a number of teaching methods that may not be identified by

some as blended. Despite the inclusion of a definition, it is possible that faculty members had

different interpretations of what blended learning is which may have affected the data. It may be

beneficial in future studies to focus on either online learning or blended learning, rather than

incorporating both, and/or further defining the term “blended learning.”

Finally, it would have been beneficial to assess a few more aspects related to educational

technology tools and training. This includes evaluating how faculty members currently learn

about available educational technology tools and trainings, how faculty members prefer to learn

about available technology tools and trainings, and what would compel a faculty member to use


or want to use a certain educational technology tool or transition to an online or blended learning

environment.

Overall, this study provides some background regarding faculty members’ awareness of

educational tools and trainings in online and blended learning. This information can be used to

consider future outreach to faculty members and future training programs.


References

Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. The

Sloan Consortium: Individuals, Institutions, and Organizations Committed to Quality

Online Education. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from http://sloanconsortium.org

Berge, Z. L., Muilinburge, L. Y., & Van Haneghan, J. (2002). Barriers to Distance Education and

Training: Survey Results. The eMODERATOR. Retrieved December 6, 2012 from

http://emoderators.com/wp-content/uploads/Barriers2002.pdf

Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary. (n.d.). Dictionary.com - Free Online English

Dictionary. Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://dictionary.com

Dooley, K. E. & Murphrey, T. P. (2000). How the Perspectives of Administrators, Faculty, and

Support Units Impact the Rate of Distance Education Adoption. Online Journal of

Distance Learning Administration, 3(4). Retrieved November 11, 2012 from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter34/dooley34.html

Frey, B. A., & Donehue, R. (2003). Making the transition from traditional of cyberspace

classrooms. PAACE Journal of Life Long Learning, 12, 69-84.

Georgina, D. A., & Hosford, C. C. (2009). Higher education faculty perceptions on technology

integration and training.Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 690-696.

Lin, H., Dyer, K., & Guo, Y. (2009). Exploring Online Teaching: A Three-Year Composite

Journal of Concerns and Strategies from Online Instructors. Online Journal of Distance

Learning Administration, 7(3). Retrieved December 6, 2012 from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall153/lin_dyer_guo153.html


Pagliari, L., Batts, D., & McFadden, C. (2009). Desired versus actual training for online

instructors in community colleges. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,

12(4).

Panda, S., & Mishra, S. (2007). E-Learning in a Mega Open University: Faculty attitude, barriers

and motivator. Educational Media International, 44(4), 323-338.

Puzziferro, M., & Shelton, K. (2008). A model for developing high quality online courses:

integrating systems approach with learning theory. Journal of Asynchronous Learning

Networks, 12(3-4), 119-136.

Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting Web-Based Learning and Teaching:A case

study in higher education . Distance Education, 28(3), 313-333.

Taylor, A. & McQuiggan, C. (2008). Faculty development programming: If we build it, will they

come? Educause Quarterly, 12(3), 29-37.

Wiesenmayer, R., Kupczynski, L., & Ice, P. (2008). The role of technical support and

pedagogical guidance provided to faculty in online programs: Considerations for higher

education administrators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4).

Retrieved March 9, 2013, from

http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter114/wiesenmayer114.html

Wolf, P. D. (2006). Best practices in the training of faculty to teach online. Journal of

Computing in Higher Education, 27(2), 47-78.

evaluation of faculty membersâ€™ desired training in online and

Documents