S5.1.2

=Teaching staff are provided with support resources (including training, guidelines and examples) on researching and reflecting upon their own practice with e-learning technologies and pedagogies. =

Evidence
Teaching staff need training and support if they are to be effective with new technologies and the associated pedagogies. This is a complex area and teaching staff need to be able to access a range of professional support as they encounter issues during their work (Harasim et al. 1995). E–learning is not just a technological add-on that teachers need to learn how to use; it is a new educational system involving new pedagogical and professional procedures and processes that require support and professional development. Khan (2005) notes that many academic and administrative staff may have not experienced e-learning themselves. He recommends that they should undertake a course using the medium in order to better understand the learner’s position (p. 35).

Webster & Hackley (1997) propose three instructor characteristics that affect e-learning success: (1) IT competency; (2) teaching style; and (3) attitude and mindset. It is important for staff to have good control over IT and are capable of performing basic trouble shooting tasks.

In a comprehensive report on improving teachers use of ICT, Scrimshaw (2004) refers to professional development approaches ‘fall[ing] along a spectrum from informal mutual support to the use of formal training courses’ (p. 21). He discusses several approaches and concludes that the question is ‘less which specific approach is best, but which combination of methods are needed to suit the level of progress staff individually and as a whole have already reached’ (p. 22).

The Learning and Skills Network (Atwere 2007) has produced a report titled ‘A professional development framework for e-learning’. They identify inadequate training in e-learning, a lack of professional recognition for those with e-learning expertise and limited accreditation. A more structured and individualised approach to continuing professional development in e-learning is needed.

In a study to identify the critical factors underpinning student satisfaction with e-learning Sun et al. (2008) found that instructor attitude toward e-learning was one of seven critical factors. This suggests that school administrators may have to be careful in selecting instructors for e-learning and that certain forms of instructor training are likely to be helpful.

Resources
Options for professional development in e-learning include not just centrally run courses, but also decentralised systems of mentors, self-tuition and online exploration. All but the most experienced staff surveyed by Mansvelt et al. (2009) wanted readily available ‘just-in-time’ support options and access to exemplars and examples of good practice. In all institutions surveyed staff wanted a range of face-to-face and online opportunities as well as personalised help on a just-in-time basis.

The LSN’s report (Atwere 2007) makes no assumption that developing e-learning capability is a linear process. There will be a range of expertise across teaching staff. E-learning continuing professional development activities therefore will need to be self-contained and capable of being assembled in different customized combinations. It will be important to undertake an initial diagnostic assessment to ensure that development is targeted where staff need it. The LSN framework for e-learning CPD identifies twenty competencies and a professional development structure model. The framework allows for e-learning professional development in ‘bite-sized’ chunks.

North Carolina State University have documented a transition bringing faculty to online teaching (Covington et al. 2005). They used a triangulated approach involving administrative support, peer support, and professional development. A significant part of the transition was an intensive ‘summer institute’ where staff e-learning needs were assessed and a variety of training options regarding technology and online pedagogy were provided. By sharing experiences between early adopters, holding presentations, mentoring via peer-to-peer workshops, and a website of shared material the transition was successful.

Ireland et al. (2009) describe good quality review processes as including evaluative review, a developmental approach, and scaffolding to assist academics. The University of Western Sydney emphasizes quality improvement through the development of academic staff skills in e-learning design. They use a framework that includes basic standards, advanced standards, and a staff development toolkit. Explicit support for staff designers is in place at all stages. Where the e-learning site designers are academic staff rather than dedicated site designers then technical and pedagogical support must be in place for staff designers. UWS provides online support for academic course designers in the form of e-learning exemplars: http://tdu.uws.edu.au//qilt/elearning.html

Kelly (2007) describes a matrix used by the Manukau Institute of Technology’s Academic Development Unit to determine what support teaching staff will require for their e-courses. Courses are scored on ten dimensions on a 1-5 scale of degrees of blended/distributed course delivery. Mostly 1s and 2s require ‘Level One’ CMS/Web use training. 3s and 4s require Level Two training. 5s require signed institutional approval for the re/developed mode of delivery change, also formal staff development in e-learning teaching is required. Overall it is important to aim support at the level that staff are at. Generic support may not help.