Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

References

Conclusions

Keeping the Focus on Pedagogy

As national and local survey respondents indicate, unless faculty development addresses pedagogical issues, it is not sufficient. Clearly, programs for online instructors need to do more than teach the tools. Arbaugh and Benbunan-Fich (2005) explain that, in addition to gaining facility with eLearning technologies, "both new and more experienced faculty need to learn about, develop, and share experiences with appropriate pedagogical principles such as how to develop, facilitate, and grade collaborative assignments, and how to facilitate high-quality online discussions" (134). To be successful, online instructors need to know what the literature says about effective practices, and they need opportunities to think about how they might incorporate these practices into their writing courses.

Some good practices in online teaching span disciplines (see Palloff and Pratt, 2005 and 2007) and can be covered in workshops delivered by academic support units or addressed by partnering with programs like Quality Matters. As mentioned in the previous section, however, rather than outsourcing all eLearning-related faculty development, it may instead be preferable for departments offering online writing courses to provide some in-house development opportunities. Given (a) what national survey respondents had to say about the value of networking with fellow online writing instructors and (b) the need for disciplinary knowledge in conversations about pedagogy, those who have successfully taught writing online may be the best candidates for offering their peers pedagogy-focused eLearning training.

For disciplinary perspectives on eLearning and faculty preparation and development, stakeholders might turn to the following special issues: 16.1 (2007) of Technical Communication and issue 23.1 (2006) of Computers and Composition. Hewett and Ehman's (2004) Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction and Cargile Cook and Grant-Davie's (2005) Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers are also instructive.

In Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction (2004), Hewett and Ehmann acknowledge that "precious few dollars are spent on teacher training, particularly on training that supersedes learning how to navigate a specific electronic platform and that addresses, instead, the pedagogy of online teaching and learning" (xiii). In response to the problem, they offer a model of online writing instructor training that is "rooted in relevant, contemporary educational theories from the fields of rhetoric and composition studies, adult learning, and e-learning" (xv). What makes Hewett and Ehmann's text unique and important is that it focuses on writing instruction in particular instead of eLearning in general. And by putting pedagogical principles before technology training, Hewett and Ehmann's model may help to address concerns raised by both national and local survey respondents.

When handled "in-house," eLearning-related faculty development workshops can pose challenges, especially if there are generational and/or rank differences between leaders and participants. (Though interactions between professional trainers and faculty participants are certainly not less problematic.) For a discussion of identity politics and other issues related to writing faculty development within a department, see Angela Crow's (2006) Aging Literacies. As Crow notes, individuals charged with teaching colleagues need to understand their audience, "how [their] own trainings and enculturations into the field influenced [their] perceptions, and . . . how learning happened for [their] local population of writing faculty" (13). Efforts can succeed if these issues are considered and addressed during planning.

The Need for Additional Research

The national and local survey results described in this webtext present only a limited view of the factors motivating faculty to teach writing online and of the experiences and concerns common to online writing instructors across ranks and at various institutions. More research is needed in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of eLearning and the teaching of writing, and this research should include additional studies on the preparation, development, and support of online writing instructors.

There are at least two research projects that would be of particular value. First, a national study of graduate students who teach writing online would reveal more about how these future faculty members are approaching online writing pedagogy and how TA training programs are addressing eLearning. Second, a study that looks for links between models of faculty preparation and student learning and satisfaction in online writing courses would provide the data needed to make arguments in favor of specific approaches to preparation and training.

* * * * *

In conclusion, although more research is needed, actionable items do emerge from the survey results discussed in this webtext. Specifically, departments and institutions not already doing so should begin to facilitate communication and informal networking among faculty who teach online, and they should ensure that faculty development offerings cover both technology and pedagogy. Immediate attention should also be paid to the suggestions and concerns voiced by survey respondents. These ideas, along with the other findings presented, can be shared with stakeholders in order to prompt necessary discussions about how individual, departmental, and institutional perspectives on eLearning are shaping the preparation, development, and support of those who teach online.

< back