Professional Development in Online Teaching and Learning in Technical Communication by Beth L. Hewett Tiffany Bourelle

Author:Beth L. Hewett, Tiffany Bourelle [Beth L. Hewett, Tiffany Bourelle]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780367582944
Barnesnoble:
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Published: 2020-06-30T00:00:00+00:00

What is striking about these responses is they all have an emphasis on wanting to teach better online and the lack of institutional support need to do so. Even the two experienced instructors, Melissa and Dennis, showed frustration around the lack of professional development and training opportunities to improve their teaching practices.

Programmatic approach

As TPC PAs recognize the need to do something about online teaching and contingent faculty, some programs have begun to require templates. The template is an LMS shell that is designed to standardize course structure and content across online sections. Mechenbier (2015a) discussed the pros and cons of this approach and counseled that it needs to be used such that contingent faculty still maintain autonomy, control over modes of distribution, and retention of proprietary interests over their courses. As the data presented above indicated, autonomy is an issue within TPC programs, and the ongoing emphasis to put more courses and programs online may exacerbate this problem. Maid and D’Angelo (2013) explained the approach they took in their program to provide contingent faculty with a “structured and standardized course” (p. 17), and Dutkiewicz, Holder, and Sneath (2013) justified the need for templates with consistent navigation and features. These two cases illustrate the points that Mechenbier (2015a) made regarding the need contingent faculty have for control over the content, delivery, and pedagogical approaches for their courses.

Janet, Melissa, and Dennis expressed unique experiences regarding the approaches of their programs that bring additional issues to the fore.

Janet stated that she was “astonished” when she accepted the position to teach a course only a few weeks before the term started. She expressed what surprised her most this way:

I can understand being given the autonomy to teach the way in which I am comfortable, but I expected to be at least given a framework—something that says “this is the way we do things and why and here’s all this stuffyou can choose from and why we’ve given you this.” It wasn’t like that at all. I’m starting to see the framework now, but it really should have had more information from the beginning. So many decisions to make about everything. I appreciate the freedom to choose, but a little more structure would have been appreciated.

Dennis was actually given even less information and less of a framework as he got started. He described his experience:

I was given a course description from the catalog as a starting point, and little more than that, initially. I was not asked to use a pre-designed course shell. In fact, I was given little direction of any kind. I reached out to my colleagues and asked them to share syllabi and course websites. One colleague was generous enough to share her course website, syllabus, and schedule. In the interests of time, I adopted her course outline more or less intact. I would like to have a defined framework for the course but a lot of freedom to design course content and assignments within that framework. I would not be able to teach effectively in an institution that mandated a fully standardized course shell.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.