University of Pécs – April 23, 2018

Visiting Fulbright Scholar Workshop Proposal

Presenter:Thomas J. Tobin, PhD, MSLS, PMP, MOT

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Title:Online Teaching Core Skills

Abstract

This 90-minute workshop for faculty members and graduate students prepares participants to be able to teach online in a consistent and informed fashion, one that relies on participants’ subject expertise as a foundation.

Come to this workshop in order to take away three“secrets” of online teaching practices:

  • Good teaching practices share 7 core elements, regardless of the subject, course level, offering mode, or instructor approach; deploy these criteria and become evaluation rock stars.
  • Much of what we do during classroom time or online interactions isn’t actually teaching; learn to tell the difference and focus on teaching behaviors.
  • Technology has extended the interactions that faculty members can have with students. Find out how to provide students with meaningful interactions that extend beyond the formal online environment.

This workshop will include hands-on opportunities for participants to perform a micro-teaching observation and evaluation, along with a discussion of best practices.

Description

Beginning with Bergquist and Phillips’ definition of “teaching quality” (1975), and continuing through Chickering and Gamson’s work on the “Seven principles of effective teaching” (1987) and later updates by Chickering and Ehermann (1996), the study of quality teaching practices has been an evolving field in higher education. Despite advances in technology (Tobin, Mandernach, & Taylor, 2015), demographic shifts among student populations, and changes in the emphasis within the service-scholarship-teaching triad of the promotion process, the observable and measurable behaviors that indicate excellent teaching remain constant (Buller, 2012).

During the first part of the workshop, participants will create a shared baseline of core teaching behaviors, grounded in the interactions and competencies as observed over the past 40 years in colleges and universities throughout North America and Europe (e.g., Bogen, 1978; Seldin, 1980; Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Astin et al., 1996; Arreola, 2007; Taylor, 2011).From such a baseline of core teaching behaviors, we can start talking about what criteria help us to carry our exemplary face-to-face teaching behaviors into the online environment.

Not everything that we observe in the online environment “counts” as a teaching behavior. It is sometimes challenging to distinguish between designed elements (the content and guidance that exists in the course documents or learning environment before students ever begin the course) and teaching behaviors (the interactions between instructors and learners) (Fink, 2008). Workshop participants will learnhow to maximizethe number of online interactions that result in effective student learning (Tobin, Mandernach, & Taylor, 2015).

As part of the workshop, participants will observe and evaluate recordings of teaching being done in the classroom and online in several disciplines (Chism, 2007), in order to identify and apply best practices for online teaching.

The workshop ends with open-conversation time for unstructured and participant-guided inquiry and reflection. Participants will leave the workshop with an understanding of how to create and facilitate online teaching interactions that are meaningful to individual faculty members, the department, and the university as a whole.

References

Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System. 3rd ed. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Astin, A. W., Banta, T. W., Cross, K. P., El-Khawas, E., Ewell, P. T., Hutchings, P., & Wright, B. D. (1996). 9 principles of good practice for assessing student learning. American Association for Higher Education (AAHE).

Bergquist, W. H. and Phillips, S. R. (1975). A Handbook for Faculty Development. Dansville, NY: The Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges.

Bogen, G. K. (1978). Performance and vitality as a function of student-faculty fit. New Directions for Institutional Research 1(20), 51-68.

Braskamp, L. and Ory, J. (1994). Assessing faculty work: enhancing individual and institutional performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Buller, J. (2012). Best Practices in Faculty Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. and Ehrmann, S. C. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. AAHE Bulletin 49, 3-6. Rpt.

Chickering, A. and Gamson, Z. (1987). Principles for good practice in undergraduate education. The Wingspread Journal (Special insert, n.p., June). Racine, WI: Johnson Foundation.

Chism, N. V. N. (2007). Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.

Fink, L. D. (2008). Evaluating teaching: A new approach to an old problem. To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development 26, 3-21.

Seldin, P. (1980). Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs: A Practical Guide to Improve Faculty Performance and Promotion/Tenure. Crugers, NY: Coventry Press.

[Taylor, A. H.] (2011). Faculty competencies for online teaching. Penn State Online. Faculty Engagement Subcommittee.

Tobin, T. J., Mandernach, B. J., & Taylor, A. H. (2015). Evaluating Online Teaching: Implementing Best Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Further Reading

Hutchings, P. (1996). The peer review of teaching: progress, issues and prospects. Innovative Higher Education 20(4), 221-234.

Ismail, E., Buskist, W., and Groccia, J. E. (2012). Peer review of teaching. In M. E. Kite (ed.), Effective Evaluation of Teaching: A Guide for Faculty and Administrators (pp. 79-91). Washington, DC: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.

Johnson, G. J., Rosenberger, J. L., and Chow, M. (2014). The importance of “setting the stage”: Maximizing the benefits of peer review of teaching. eLearn Magazine.

Lattuca, L. R. and Domagal-Goldman, J. M. (2007). Using Qualitative methods to assess teaching effectiveness. New Directions for Institutional Research 1(136), 81-93.

McInnis, C. (2002). The impact of technology on faculty performance and its evaluation. New Directions for Institutional Research 1 (114), 53-61.

New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability. (2012). Committing to Quality Guidelines for Assessment and Accountability in Higher Education. to quality-3rd edition.pdf.

Varvel, V. (2007). Master online teacher competencies. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 10(1).

Walvoord, B. E. (2004). Assessment Clear and Simple. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wilkerson, L., and Karron, G. L. (2002). Classroom observation: The observer as collaborator. In K. H. Gillespie (ed.), A Guide to Faculty Development (pp. 74-81). Bolton, MA: Anker.

1