No abstract

The purpose of this case study was to examine how a professional graduate program in higher education administration developed seminar-style courses in a blended format. Blended courses involved two extended in-person weekend sessions with synchronous online sessions, and other asynchronous coursework in between. This study explored the importance of interaction, student satisfaction, and motivation to student success. Data were collected through student surveys and faculty interviews from 11 courses within the same graduate degree program at a private, highly-selective research university from spring 2016 through spring 2018. Class size was the biggest factor relating to student interaction. This study also found synchronous online discussions had a greater impact than other learning activities and that satisfaction and interaction had a slight increase over time as students and instructors became more comfortable with the format.

Background Most health care professionals get their start in academics without formal teaching training. As such, institutions encourage participation in opportunities to address gaps in faculty’s knowledge of pedagogy and learning theory in order to promote both successful student and patient outcomes. This study aimed to examine the reception of a faculty development program focused on teaching participants the basics of course design. Methods Applying a mixed-method approach, this retrospective study used pre/post-tests, assignment grades, self-assessment questionnaires, and focus groups to elucidate the impact of the faculty development intervention on course design. The participants (n = 12) were health educators from a private all-graduate level university with campus locations across the United States, including in the Southwest and Midwest. In the Course Design Institute (CDI), the participating faculty learned evidence-based instructional approaches and techniques to implement contemporary teaching practices. Results The data from the pre/post-tests and focus groups suggest that participants learned about topics including instructional alignment, learning goals and objectives, instructional strategies, assessment planning, feedback approaches, communicating expectations, and adult learning theories by participating in this course. The final deliverable scores indicate that the CDI graduates were able to apply a backward design process to plan their own instruction. Data from both the survey and the focus groups suggest that participants were satisfied with the experience and particularly appreciated that the course was relevant to them as educators in the health sciences. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that the CDI was influential in developing the faculty’s knowledge of the course design process, promoted the application of course design and pedagogy skills amongst CDI graduates, and positively impacted self-reported attitudes about their teaching abilities. In addition, feedback from participants indicates that they recognized the value of this program in their own development and they believed it should be a required course for all educators at the institution.