Rozprawy doktorskie na temat „Faculty of Design”

Challenges in the implementation process of a new undergraduate nursing curriculum are multifactorial. Utilizing constructs of Hall’s (2013) Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), and Oreg’s (2003, 2006) Resistance to Change Scale, the study examined faculty members’ personal concerns and resistance to change, regarding implementation of a new curriculum. The study is quantitative research, using correlational statistical analysis and use of descriptive statistics. Senge’s Leadership Theory and Wegner’s Community of Practice Theory formed the theoretical framework for the study. The study included participation from 11 BSN nursing program faculty from several universities in the United States that adopted a new conceptual-based nursing curriculum. Results of statistical testing showed no relationship between faculty profile scores for adoption along a change continuum and the study variables as objective measures. However, recommendations for follow-up research include qualitative research and further analysis of study demographic data not originally used in the study.

The introduction of technological tools has created a paradigm shift in the field of education. As such, online learning has become a popular method for students to access educational courses. Due to the increased demand by learners for online classes, administrators at American institutions of higher learning are faced with the challenge of moving faculty members to an online environment. However, transitioning to an online environment requires a role change for faculty members. Specifically faculty members must shift their instructional methods from on-ground lecturer to online mentor, which can be challenging. Indeed many faculty members transition to online instruction without the necessary training, support, or skills needed to be successful. The purpose of this qualitative, multiple case study was to develop a better understanding of how higher education faculty members transition from a face-to-face (i.e., on-ground) teaching format to an online teaching format. Participants included nine faculty members, representing different colleges and universities, who teach at post-secondary institutions within the United States. Participants had taught face-to-face classes for one year or more, and had taught at least three classes using an online format. An in-depth, open-ended, semi-structured interview format was used to gather data. The data provided by the participating faculty members were collected, coded using a line-by-line format, and the codes were compared to one another with the goal of finding a pattern. The development of conceptual categories and data analysis continued until saturation was achieved. Based on the data analysis, transforming was the conceptual theme for how higher education faculty members transition from a face-to-face (i.e., on-ground) teaching format to an online teaching format. Three transitioning skills were also identified as integral components for faculty members transitioning from face-to-face to online instruction. Future areas of research include: 1) how foreign language instructors develop asynchronous communicative collaborative activities and 2) how administrators could add specific subject area needs into their training programs or workshops.

An Investigation of Higher Education Faculty About Mobile Learning. Serena Brown, 2018; Applied Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Abraham S. Fischler College of Education. Keywords: mobile learning, mobile devices, technology integration, learning engagement, instructor perceptions, MLPS, UTAUT.

This applied dissertation was designed to investigate instructor perceptions about mobile learning among instructors in higher education. The study included the areas of influences of mobile technologies over the approaches of teaching and learning, use of mobile learning technologies to develop class instruction, use of mobile learning for professional learning, influences of mobile learning over the restrictions of time and space when acquiring knowledge anytime, anywhere, and mobile learning to facilitate teacher-student communications. An additional objective of this study was to add a more current literature source to the existing literature addressing instructor perceptions about mobile learning in higher education.

The writer used the Mobile Learning Perception Scale, a quantitative survey, using a cross-sectional survey design collecting data at one point in time during the study with nonprobability convenience sampling.

An overall analysis of the data revealed higher education instructors agreed (mean = 3.81, median = 4.00, mode = 4) with K12 teachers (mean = 4.09, median = 4.00, mode = 4) mobile learning techniques and tools were beneficial for use in the approaches to teaching and learning, influential in the development of classroom instruction strategies, useful for professional learning, influential over the restrictions of time when acquiring knowledge anytime, anywhere, and useful for facilitating teacher-student communication.

The results of this study provide administrators the benefit of insight into instructors’ perceptions and attitudes of mobile learning at the higher education level. Knowing higher education instructors’ perceptions and attitudes about mobile learning afford the institution a much-needed understanding of the direct determinants and influencing key moderators which inform behavioral intention and use of mobile learning technologies (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).

Employers highly value college graduates who have strong teamwork and interpersonal skills. In studies focused on employer priorities for college learning sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities in 2008, 2010, and 2013, employers have stated that colleges should do more to prepare graduates to work effectively in a team-based work environment. Equally important is the empirical research which has demonstrated that cooperative learning has the ability to significantly enhance student learning. These benefits include higher academic achievement, better longterm retention of what is learned, enhanced ability to transfer learning from one situation to another and a more positive attitude toward the academic subject being studied. Lastly, the study of teamwork is important to the study of leadership, without a team of followers there is no leadership. Many college and university faculty have students work in cooperative groups and assign team projects in their courses. Unfortunately, most faculty do not realize that the development of effective teamwork knowledge, skills, and abilities takes time, education and training. Students need to be taught how to work cooperatively in teams; these skills do not naturally develop on their own.

The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate the differences between what the research literature identifies as cooperative learning and teamwork instructional “best practices” and what postsecondary faculty in a variety of academic disciplines actually do when employing groups or teams in their courses. An additional research objective was to gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to any differences discovered. In order to take a first step toward answering these questions a web-based survey of full-time faculty, both liberal arts and professional, employed at ten different Maryland colleges and universities was conducted.

An analysis of the data collected revealed that a preponderance of the faculty assigned cooperative work and team assignments for student centered reasons; they want their students to learn teamwork skills and course content. Yet the majority of the faculty implement very few of the cooperative learning and teamwork instructional “best practices” discussed in the academic literature. In other words, students were assigned to course teams with little forethought, preparation, or guidance from faculty and many of the assignments utilized were not properly designed for student group/team learning. The research suggests a majority of faculty harbor misconceptions about how students learn teamwork skills and do not realize that their own knowledge of cooperative learning and teamwork as well as of the best instructional practices was very limited. Lastly, the research uncovered several statistically significant relationships among the use of cooperative groups, team projects and instructional “best practices” and with faculty teamwork self-efficacy, collectivism values, motivation, attitude and to a lesser degree with faculty teamwork KSAs and demographics.

By gaining a better understanding of faculty confidence and competence to teach and coach effective cooperative learning and teamwork within their classrooms, colleges and universities will be able to develop meaningful instructional aids, mentoring programs and professional development opportunities which support faculty in the effective facilitation of meaningful group exercises and team projects in their courses. In so doing, the college student’s attitude toward future team opportunities will be more positive and the likelihood increased that effective teamwork skills will be developed and more likely transferred to future professional situations.

Faculty-designers (educational professionals untrained in instructional design) have emerged as critical components in development of online courses and a need has arisen to ensure that faculty-designers possess appropriate skills and competencies to maintain quality of online courses.

This study sought to address the challenge of interesting university professors in adopting more deliberate and integrated approaches to course design through a multi-case study of five professors in the liberal arts at a top-tier research university. Professors watched video-recorded interviews with five of their own past students who were graduates of the university. The researcher interviewed the professors before and after they viewed the alumni feedback. Professors were asked to reflect on what most surprised and concerned them in the interviews and if and how they were inclined or disinclined to alter their courses. Professors were also asked to compare feedback from alumni to feedback from students. Central findings related to the research questions were that: (a) professors’ views of their course and course design changed after receiving feedback from their alumni; (b) professors perceived a need to alter their course design when they received surprising and concerning feedback from alumni; (c) but, feedback needed to be sufficiently concerning for professors to be inclined to alter their course designs, and (d) even then, several factors disinclined professors to follow through on changes. These factors opposing change include professors’ recollections of their college experiences, lack of pedagogical and course design knowledge, and university disincentives to focus on teaching. Professors appreciated hearing from the alumni because alumni had longer-term and more real world perspective than current students and were unconcerned about grades. Professors uniformly disliked, and to a great extent disregarded, student feedback from course evaluations because surveys are anonymous and lack context about who is making a comment and why. In contrast, the alumni interviews allowed professors to see and hear personalized feedback that provided context for which individual said what. Several additional findings emerged from the research. These were: (a) professors developed courses based on limited understanding of what students retained in a course; (b) professors relied considerably on their own educational experiences and on trial and error in creating courses and in their teaching; and (c) professors’ dislike of course evaluations made them skeptical of student feedback. These findings have potential significance for professors, faculty developers, universities, and students because they suggest an avenue for impacting faculty attitudes about their course design by planting seeds of curiosity about the link between design and course impact. Findings also support the use of alumni interviews as a tool for collecting feedback and existing evidence that faculty development efforts are best when they are personal, context-specific, and endure over time. Because this was a small exploratory study, repeating the alumni interview approach with more faculty and alumni is recommended.