Self-Directed and Transformative Instructional Development

Abstract

Introduction It is my intent in this article to apply recent theoretical developments in adult education to instructional development practice. More specifically, I will use the process of self-directed learning and the theory of transformative learning to reframe the roles that instructional developers adopt in working with faculty. Background Colleges and universities across North America as well as government departments responsible for higher education are increasingly paying attention to the quality of teaching [28]. This growing concern has led to renewed attention to faculty growth and development: how new faculty acquire their teaching skills [4], what higher education administrators can do to foster good teaching [31], the role of evaluation in enhancing effectiveness [12], and practical strategies for the instructional developer [39]. What is particularly encouraging are recent attempts to view instructional development from new perspectives that treat faculty as adult co-learners; for example, Zuber-Skerritt's [41] interest in collaborative research between developers and faculty; Amundsen, Gryspeerdt and Moxness's [1] work with faculty discussion groups; and Lunde and Hartung's [25] Cooperative Program for the Professional Renewal of Faculty. However, Levinson-Rose and Menges's [24] concern of a dozen years ago is still a concern of writers and researchers in faculty development. Upon reviewing the literature from the inception of faculty development programs in the late 1960s until 1980, Levinson-Rose and Menges concluded that most programs provided superficial experiences. They tended to focus on the teaching of specific techniques (constructing tests, preparing course outlines) in a prescriptive format and without consideration of the context of the faculty member's teaching or his or her prior knowledge and experience. The primary evidence of the effectiveness of such strategies was participants' ratings of their satisfaction with the session [24]. It became clear that one fundamental limitation of both practice and research in instructional development was the lack of a coherent and comprehensive theoretical foundation for the field. Institutions interested in the quality of teaching naturally enough followed the common model of establishing a center to support and enhance teaching. Such a center would then be staffed by developers (academic or staff positions) and support personnel. Generally, little formal training was available to such individuals [6]; therefore they relied on available guides and resources emphasizing practical techniques. Their research interests then focused on the evaluation of the effectiveness of their practice. This is not to say that promising theoretical work was not done, but it did tend to be somewhat fragmented, related to single aspects of the field. The intent here is not to provide a comprehensive review of these works; some illustrations should suffice to underline the point being made. Faculty development was linked with career development, drawing on stage theories [7], and with organizational development [21] models. Smith [35] and Smith and Schwartz [36] drew on Argyris and Schon's [2] action theory to devise strategies for helping faculty identify their assumptions about teaching. Brinko [6] used Vygotsky's [38] theory of cognitive development to describe communication between the instructional developer and the faculty member. Several researchers have used cognitive theory as a means of understanding faculty members' knowledge of their subject matter and of their instruction [29, 34]. Each of these aspects of instructional development are important, and the work being done to understand them by drawing on various theories can only be applauded. Yet one is still left with the sense that a more comprehensive theoretical framework would serve to enhance these efforts as well as the work of practitioners in the field. Rationale Faculty are adult learners. …