Internet Learning Volume 3, Number 1, Spring 2014 | Page 109

Beliefs Regarding Faculty Participation
An objective examination of faculty beliefs,
instead of reliance on hearsay and a vocal
minority, was useful in identifying genuine
faculty concerns that can be directly
addressed. Consistent with the previous
research, most notably Hartman (2011)
who used the Theory of Planned Behavior
to design interventions geared to changing
behaviors, our data suggest some initial directions
to guide administrative changes in
our process.
Based on this research, we are revising
the delivery of our process in an attempt
to increase participation in our internal
peer review. Despite institutional recognition
and monetary incentives, the majority
of faculty members at our institution chose
not to participate in the peer review. Apparently,
institutional supports alone are not
sufficient when introducing the peer review
to faculty members who have experienced
only administrative reviews of teaching.
We are exploring additional ways to support
faculty participation in peer reviews.
For example, as indicated in this research,
limited faculty time and perceived difficulty
of completing the process were concerns
endorsed by faculty. Therefore, we are
examining how we can link our required
training to teach online with our peer review
process to consolidate what faculty
members perceive as two distinct processes
with different goals. Though both the prerequisite
training to develop a course so
that it can be taught online and the peer review
performed after the course has been
taught at least once share the same goals of
course development and revision, our faculty
do not necessarily view the processes
as related. By incorporating the peer review
process with the conclusion of the required
training, course development and revision
in the light of the QM standards would be
a direct application of training. Linking
the processes would allow faculty to utilize
near transfer of learning from training and
make it clear that course development is the
goal instead of merely completing trainings
to gain the ability to teach online and then
participating in a peer review if time permits.
Consolidation of the faculty workload
may create the perception of one process
that is directly applicable to their primary
responsibilities. Related to this issue, we
also intend to reframe our QM training
and course development activities to better
emphasize their linkage to improved student
learning. The finding that our faculty
perceived that students would not desire
their involvement in the peer review was
concerning, given that the foundational element
of the process is improving courses
so that student learning improves. We think
that understanding this linkage is critical to
fostering faculty buy-in to the process.
To demonstrate to faculty that peer
review is a valid use of their limited time
and that their effort will produce visible results,
we are planning to showcase peer reviewed
courses as model course exemplars
for other faculty. It is our goal to create a
teaching and learning community in which
faculty members openly share course improvement
ideas. If effective, this practice
may increase the incentive to participate in
peer reviews without increasing the cost of
the process. We are currently hosting faculty
brown bags to set the conditions and
are drafting a plan to establish a new peerto-peer
mentoring program to support our
peer review process.
Another revision to our internal
procedures with the goal of increasing peer
review participation is increasing the incentive
to become a peer reviewer. Though
we had several faculty member volunteers
to review courses even before we included
a small stipend, a small group of faculty
members shouldered a heavy review workload.
Expanding our pool of trained inter-
108