Colleges and universities across the United States and around the world experienced rapid, jarring instructional changes throughout 2020 and beyond as COVID-19 limited in-person teaching. Many of these changes were anchored in various approaches to blended learning, the combination of face-to-face and online learning with both synchronous and asynchronous elements of engagement with instructors, learners, and content. Given the need to support instructors in shifting to remote and blended teaching, higher education institutions (HEIs) turned to faculty developers in centers for teaching and learning. We saw our role in leading this change as an opportunity to transform instructional practice across the institution. In this article we share our case study, analyzing the data and participants’ insights through the lens of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991), and surface both lessons learned and design elements for faculty developers to consider as they design learning opportunities for instructors. We view these efforts as resulting in a successful community of transformation (CoT), defined as one intended to “create and foster innovative spaces that envision and embody a new paradigm of practice” (Kezar et al., 2018, p. 833).

Disorienting Dilemma: The Shift to Remote Teaching

In his recent article, Daniel (2021) argued the emergency shift to remote teaching sparked by COVID-19 does not provide a “sufficient basis for success in the long term” (p. 9). Similarly, Bates (2020) reported on the sweeping shift to online learning across nations in response to COVID-19 and asserted “half-measures are not going to work . . . . Just moving your lectures online will only work once. What do you do for the next semester, and more importantly long-term?” (para. 30). Building longer-term instructor capacity for sustained transformation requires intentional planning and reflection to change teaching practices.

From the outset of the shift to remote teaching in Spring 2020, we saw an opportunity to gradually evolve our training and support from an initial focus on survival skills for remote teaching to a more forward-looking, sustained shift in teaching practice. As we worked with instructors in Spring 2020, we developed insights on struggles and opportunities that would inform a more intentional approach to helping them develop the skills and techniques for more lasting instructional practices that would have value beyond the pandemic. Recognizing that faculty would need to learn multiple new skills and pedagogical approaches to adapt their courses to remote and blended modalities, we decided to focus from the outset on the potential to help faculty transform or reimagine their teaching practice both during and beyond the pandemic.

To this end, we developed a blended course in our university’s learning management system (LMS) to help instructors to reflect on their current teaching practice, identify challenges and new possibilities in blended or remote teaching, build capacity in a range of modalities (e.g., blended, remote synchronous, remote asynchronous), and engage with other instructors across disciplines teaching in a similar modality. We emphasized human connection and interactions as key to our blended learning philosophy. Similar to Kezar et al. (2018), we found this articulation through instructional materials, communications, and synchronous discussions to be foundational for the overall CoT approach. Additionally, the course included a range of on-demand resources, including instructor interviews highlighting instructional strategies, planning documents, teaching strategy tip sheets, and video tutorials for relevant technology tools and resources. The course was available to all instructors across the university during Summer 2020. We scheduled multiple synchronous webinars and live discussion sessions, but participants were able to work at their own pace to plan their courses for the Fall 2020 semester. Participation was incentivized by offering technology tools and resources to support blended and remote teaching for those who completed the course. Additionally, many course completers requested a student partner to work with them as a synchronous or asynchronous teaching assistant for remote courses.

Through this professional learning course, we developed a CoT framed by blended teaching. CoTs catalyze innovative practices that may challenge and change instructional perspectives and practice (Kezar et al., 2018). In the course, we embedded multiple reflection prompts, opportunities for connections with colleagues and consultations with teaching and learning staff members, and design activities that challenged participants to apply what they were learning in the context of their own teaching. These strategies align with recommendations on how to stimulate a CoT. Specifically, three critical characteristics of CoTs include a clear and engaging philosophy, exemplifying new practices, and faculty relationships to sustain new practices beyond the community (Kezar et al., 2018). We examined how the blended teaching practices we taught instructors, particularly as a result of participating in a course focused on blended learning design and faculty interaction, encouraged them to reflect on their practice more broadly and if that led to transformation that could influence any future teaching.

Transformative Learning

According to Mezirow’s (1991) transformative learning theory (TLT), learning typically occurs when individuals gain skills or knowledge, whereas transformative learning occurs through questioning how one thinks. Such transformation often leads to deeper and more sustained changes in perspectives (Brookfield, 1995). Reflection on assumptions and values that guide instructional practice can lead to shifts in teaching paradigms and perspectives (Mezirow & Taylor, 2009).

Integral to transformative learning is what Mezirow (1991) coined the “disorienting dilemma.” The disorienting dilemma is a moment that may cause individuals to reflect on or question their current thinking. The critical and urgent need to shift to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic created a ripe environment for challenges that may spark disorienting dilemmas that might cause instructors to critically reflect upon their assumptions and change how they think about and approach teaching. The rapid shift to remote and blended teaching during the pandemic served as a large-scale disorienting dilemma, as described by Mezirow (1991) for instructors at our institution and around the world.


We employed a faculty survey and semi-structured interviews to understand faculty experiences in shifting their teaching to a remote or blended context after engaging in a blended learning course to help them prepare for the 2020–2021 academic year (see Appendix A for survey and interview protocol). We surveyed faculty as they completed the voluntary blended learning course framed as a CoT offered to all instructors in Summer 2020. The survey focused on understanding their experience with blended and online teaching as well as the major issue(s) they encountered in redesigning their courses for the Fall 2020 semester. At the end of this survey, selected volunteers agreed to participate in an interview to explore their perspectives more fully. Though the interviews with this subset of participants and the themes that emerged are the primary focus of this article, the quantitative findings below offer important considerations for the context of these interviews.

Summary of Survey Results

Of the 440 instructors that voluntarily completed the blended learning course, 99 responded to the survey at the end of the course for a response rate of 23%. In terms of faculty’s previous experiences teaching in different modalities, 78% of respondents indicated that they had only taught traditional face-to-face courses. Overall, 9% had experience teaching fully online, 4% in a blended format, and 7% in both fully online and blended formats. Not surprisingly, 69% of respondents indicated that the degree of challenge in adapting a course for blended delivery was either very challenging (60%) or extremely challenging (9%) (see Figure 1). When asked if they were able to solve their most significant (instructional) challenge as a result of engaging in the CoT, 55% reported yes, 5% reported no, and 39% reported that they weren’t sure. This suggests that more than 90% of respondents solved, or made progress toward solving, their most significant teaching challenges after completing the blended learning course.

Figure 1.The Percentage of Challenge in Navigating Course Adaptation

Note. Figure 1 illustrates the number of responses in each category (n = 93).

In addition to better understanding the complexity of the challenges participants encountered, we sought to learn which experiences and/or instructional resources from the voluntary blended learning course helped instructors the most. Respondents selected course features from their learning experience and ranked the perceived usefulness as compared to other course features, with a value of 1 being most useful (see Table 1). The highest ranked responses focused on accessing videos and tutorials along with different aspects of connecting with one another, including discussing ideas with peers, consultations, and seeing examples from their peers. This suggests that the range of supports and resources available were important to meet instructors’ differentiated learning needs as they developed their fall courses.

Table 1.

Most Helpful Resources and Supports

Resource / support

Mean rank score

On-demand videos/tutorials


Dialogue with peers


Individual consultations


Examples from peers


Structured online learning experiences


Templates and course development guides


On-demand readings and resources


Joining in group discussions/meetups


    Note. Table 1 displays the mean score responses of all respondents’ rankings in each category with a range of 1 to 8, 1 being the most helpful.

Interviews with six instructors who completed the blended learning course helped us to understand more fully the challenges they experienced and how their thinking and practice evolved as they shifted their courses to remote and blended modalities. We used open-response survey question data to strategically select six interview participants who reflected a broad range of disciplinary focus and comfort level with blended and online teaching. These six instructors represent multiple departments across the university and a broad range of experience and comfort teaching in digital spaces. Beginning with a priori codes structured around reflection, dialogue, empathy, changes in thinking, changes in practice, and teaching context derived from a previous study of transformational learning (Wargo, 2021), we each individually coded the transcripts. We met to discuss areas where our coding diverged to reach consensus. Below we share a brief synthesis of themes that emerged from across these six participants.

Themes Across Cases

Several themes emerged from the interviews with our participants after they completed the blended learning course. These themes correspond with essential CoT elements, including connecting with other instructors within and beyond their departments, a willingness to experiment in their teaching, an increased empathy for and vulnerability with students, identifying new teaching approaches, and an increased level of confidence to extend transformed practices beyond the pandemic. The themes reflect the sense of transformation in both teaching approaches and understandings of student experiences. Below we address each theme with examples from participants. We aligned the themes to the CoT characteristics discussed above to highlight the specific transformations noted by participants.

An Engaging Philosophy: Faculty Connections and Conversations

While faculty typically enjoy sharing ideas with their departmental colleagues, the connections both within and beyond departments proved instrumental in our participants navigating the shift to remote and blended teaching. These conversations, ranging in depth, topic, and discipline, mediated the sharing of instructional concerns, questions, and instructional strategies across the institution. For instance, sparked by some instructors’ participation in the course, the history department created a COVID teaching listserv where instructors posed questions about teaching practice and shared effective instructional strategies.

One participant found that discussing best practices with colleagues from a similar discipline was most beneficial to implementing different instructional strategies in her course. Another participant felt the virtual meetups embedded in the blended learning course catalyzed new connections with colleagues from across schools and departments. One foreign languages instructor noted, “It was great because even if you take something from Economics, then faculty from Economics, or from the School of Education, or from any other school or department . . . can explain it to you.” This sharing of cross-disciplinary perspectives created new pedagogical opportunities and fostered a greater sense of community among instructors. Interestingly, one participant felt the remote context made him closer and more connected to his colleagues because it required him to meaningfully collaborate with others in order to effectively navigate the transition to teaching in a different modality. This illustrates the importance of intentionally including experiences in the blended learning course that encouraged participants to connect and support one another as they engaged in their course design. For these participants, ongoing connection and conversation proved to be an engaging philosophy of their CoT.

Exemplifying New Practices: The Value of Experimentation and Course Correction

As they worked through the blended learning course, participants explored new teaching techniques and were guided through making instructional decisions, factoring in their course structure and goals as well as their instructional modality (e.g., remote, blended). The shift to remote and blended teaching amplified the experimental nature of course design and delivery, which required instructors to more frequently make adjustments and course corrections during the semester. Learning to teach in a new modality necessitated a more flexible approach to teaching as instructors negotiated which strategies worked for their students in the digital space. According to one participant,

I need to change things way more often and way more than I used to do . . . not every day, but like three times a week . . . a new recall exercise, a new small group exercise, a new big group exercise, different ways to approach the readings, et cetera.

One participant noted how the shift also forced him to rethink assessment practices in order to be more attentive to students’ progress online. According to this participant, students seemed to need more time and increased opportunities to revise assignments than in previous years.

Even though shifting to remote and blended teaching was overwhelming, participants reported gaining confidence and having pride in their work. There was an overall sense that the willingness to take risks and try new strategies resulted in increased competence—even if a lesson flopped. One participant said,

[If] it didn’t work so well, I learned something from that. And I mean, there was this thing about where you felt out how to create a flipped lesson, which I tried. And like I said, it didn’t work quite as well as I had hoped it would work.

Participants found that negotiating this transition began with feelings of anxiety but that through the process of trying new instructional strategies, they added more strategies to their tool kit and took pride in that. One participant commented,

So it went from complete and utter panic to, hey, I created something kind of cool and I really look forward to when I get to teach ballet again because I have some really neat, different lessons that aren’t just in class dancing together lessons . . . . I went from terror to a little bit of pride.

This type of course correction is based on a willingness to be flexible in response to students’ needs. Faculty embodied and exemplified the practices of experimentation and course corrections in such a way that will carry on to future teaching. As a result, a transformation from panic to pride was accompanied by feelings of increased confidence and competence in being able to negotiate teaching in the digital environment.

Relationships to Sustain Empathy, Vulnerability, and Student Engagement

From the outset of the pandemic, faculty expressed a heightened sense of empathy for students with a focus on supporting them during the challenging context of remote learning. Interview participants recognized the value of establishing community around the shared experiences of teaching and learning during a pandemic—both with their students and fellow instructors. In this way, faculty members shared in the uncertainty and frustration of the moment while making efforts to connect with students to better understand their situations. Communicating and sharing their own realities and challenges of teaching and learning in an unusual or unbalanced environment enabled them to empathize in a transparent way with their students. According to one participant,

I think that because of the pandemic, because of the fact that we’re all isolated, students feel like they feel better if they can actually tell that their professors are also . . . struggling, that’s like the more humane or personal aspect of blended learning.

For several participants, affirming the disorienting nature of the pandemic established a new level of vulnerability—for both students and instructors. Camaraderie with fellow instructors along with empathy for the student experience provided ways to better understand students’ struggles and reframe the teacher-student dynamic to include more self-disclosure. As one professor noted,

I had to get over that a little bit . . . and learn that it’s OK not to be the authority figure. Having to be a lot more real with students, there’s so much we can learn without being, you know, the be all and end all.

Reframing student engagement around empathy for the shared experiences they encountered in teaching and learning in a remote context was a new or different mindset for several participants.

A New Paradigm of Practice: Fresh Approaches and Expanded Confidence in Digital Pedagogical Tool Kits

The shift to remote or blended learning surfaced uneven experiences when transitioning preferred face-to-face pedagogies to the digital environment. In general, instructors reported shifting from a fairly routine set of teaching practices to a more diverse and flexible approach. This fresh expansion of teaching and learning strategies went beyond the experimental nature of being more adaptive and flexible in their instruction, as noted in Theme 1. In many cases participants reported the need to expand their teaching practice beyond their typical approach. For example, courses with highly experiential or kinesthetic elements were the most tangible obstacles to overcome. In essence, previous teaching skills did not align with the new digital context. In the words of one dance instructor,

The whole issue of trying to teach partner-dancing—10 feet apart—it’s been very, very awkward. So, yeah, I second guess myself a lot . . . and I admit things like, oh, wow, that was going to go a whole lot better in my head than it’s actually going.

This process of changes in thinking, changes in practice, and reflection proved to be transformative in multiple disciplines. When considering more didactic approaches, similar change patterns emerged.

Participants whose primary teaching strategies included lecture, discussion, or other aspects of dialogue found the discomfort of switching modes to be a catalyst for more reflexive change. One participant’s experience illustrated such change:

It was just annoying for me because I didn’t have the answers. So this caused me discomfort that I had to reconcile, reflect . . . . It caused me discomfort at the beginning. And then by having to do it, I really was able to articulate some ideas and I admit that I had to change course.

Changing course mid-semester was yet another disorienting dilemma causing immediate reflection on the efficacy of instructional practices used within the modality. In the words of one participant, “Certain methods I had been using in lectures maybe don’t work as well in Zoom.” This led to additional pruning of typical activities and methods in order to preserve the essence of the learning experience for students in the remote or blended digital environment. In this way, participants expanded the breadth of their pedagogical methods through the blended learning course while practicing critical reflection to drive instructional decision-making. This reflexive practice created an on-ramp toward extending these strategies beyond the pandemic teaching environment and can potentially establish a new paradigm of practice, characterized by enhanced self-reflection and confidence. These points are addressed in the next section.

Increased Confidence to Carry New Practices Beyond the Pandemic

Throughout the experience of teaching in a remote or blended format, participants were able to discover, practice, and gain confidence implementing instructional strategies they hope to carry forward beyond the pandemic. This sparked shifts in thinking about instructional practice more broadly. For instance, one participant experienced a reinvigoration of teaching practice.

Before the pandemic, . . . I had reached an equilibrium in terms of things I would do in the class, learning objectives, student engagement . . . . So, it makes me think that things that I’m doing now, they could be potentially better and they could provide a great benefit to the class once we’re back in person.

Similarly, another participant commented that she is now considering ways to apply the lessons learned throughout the pandemic to her future teaching. She stated, “I’m looking at my other courses and thinking, oh gosh, now I need to do this with my other courses.” Another instructor found that this experience caused him to think intentionally about the design of discussion activities that would elicit more student perspectives in his courses.

Discussion and Application

In our context, transformative learning framed by a CoT may promote lasting changes in practice, as several of the interviews suggest, that stem from changed assumptions and values. These changes included increased experimentation in their teaching, a greater focus on empathy and authenticity with students, and increased confidence in adjusting instruction to meet students’ needs. Though consistent with Kezar et al. (2018), this result is tempered by the uncertainty of remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic and the various levels of professional learning undertaken by our participants. We noted a general value and appreciation for content-based learning experiences within the course while observing a clear preference for community-based learning experiences through dialogue and shared ideas. Similar to Kezar et al. (2018), we found our participants going beyond simple modification or adjustment of their course activities and instructional strategies. Instead, through a community of peers, they embraced specific changes in practice and underlying beliefs. Based on our findings and ongoing work in digital learning, we recommend four design elements to consider when pursuing faculty development as a potentially transformative learning experience. These recommendations are specific to our context and are grounded in our university’s mission, our unit’s values, and the response to critical needs during the pandemic. However, we believe the following design elements can be helpful for faculty developers more broadly as they design professional learning experiences with an eye toward transformation.

Intentional Learning From Colleagues, Within and Across Departments

Providing intentional opportunities for colleagues in different disciplines to learn from one another enables cross-disciplinary interaction that prompts reflective dialogue, a key component of transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). Similar to recommendations from Kezar et al. (2018), our experience suggests that interdisciplinary communities provide varied perspectives and methods that prompt changes in thinking as well as a willingness to implement new practices.

Help Faculty Develop Flexibility in Teaching

Disorienting dilemmas often lead to reflecting upon assumptions about teaching and learning and reconceptualizing core teaching approaches (King, 2001). We advocate for faculty to use research-based best practices across teaching modalities while also maintaining an agile approach to unfamiliar or innovative teaching strategies. Through the blended learning course and our interactions with faculty, we learned that the modular organization of instructors’ course content, offering a range of possible teaching strategies, and providing concrete tools for faculty to use to elicit student input on their experience were all instrumental to their success in responding to students’ needs and preferences in their instructional design. As faculty developers, we equip instructors to approach evaluating their students’ needs with increased agility by providing training, tools, and resources to help them integrate these practices into their teaching.

Encourage Faculty to View Teaching as Dynamic and Responsive Processes

A dynamic teaching environment requires nimbleness in both teaching methods and student feedback. Due to the potentially competing priorities of teaching and learning in a higher education environment, the temptation to be routine and formulaic in teaching can be a barrier to responding to the needs of students. Responsive teaching embraces rigor and relevance with built-in processes for feedback and student check-ins. Student feedback loops, reflection, and a willingness to change approaches during a course allow for better connections with students and, potentially, greater engagement with the content. Faculty developers leverage the experiences and approaches of faculty who successfully navigated pandemic teaching to share their insights with their colleagues.

Proactively Design Faculty Learning Communities With Transformation in Mind

An emphasis on establishing faculty communities through the blended learning course fostered a CoT and a new paradigm for teaching methods during the pandemic and beyond. In this way, faculty can continue to be open to new assumptions and practices as they view teaching as a discrete area of professional growth (Newman, 2017). An understanding of teaching as praxis toward refining one’s craft instills a sense of ongoing learning and transformation. Attention to the three characteristics of CoTs (Kezar et al., 2018)—including a clear and engaging philosophy, exemplifying new practices, and faculty relationships—is an essential element to proactively seeking to encourage the transformation of practice.


This study expanded our view of faculty development to focus on formal learning experiences and faculty communities as pathways to transformative learning. Creating faculty learning communities with transformation in mind could become a fundamental element of faculty interaction and learning in the post-pandemic landscape. Attention to the three characteristics of CoTs along with the design suggestions put forth in this article could provide the structure for faculty developers to design for transformation in their own institutional contexts.

We see areas for continued inquiry into how disorienting dilemmas and transformative learning contribute to the resilience of both faculty and students. In fact, transitions to post-pandemic teaching may be yet another disorienting dilemma and transformative experience for higher education. However, the general increased attention and focus on higher education teaching and learning of all types contribute to positive change facilitated by the need to transform and the willingness to adapt.


Mark Hofer, PhD, is Professor of Education in the School of Education at William & Mary. He was also the inaugural Director of the William & Mary Studio for Teaching & Learning Innovation. He is now the Educational Partnerships Coordinator in the W&M Office of Strategic Cultural Partnerships.

Adam P. Barger, PhD, is Associate Director for Academic Innovation & Digital Learning at William & Mary’s Studio for Teaching & Learning Innovation. His teaching and research focus on digital fluency in teaching and learning, web-based pedagogy, learning in community, and multimodal assessments.

Kelly Leffel is a doctoral student in the Curriculum and Learning Design program in the William & Mary School of Education.

Katalin Wargo, is the Director of Academic Innovation and Pedagogical Partnerships at William & Mary’s Studio for Teaching and Learning Innovation. Her teaching and research focus on educational leadership, transformative approaches toward faculty professional learning, and human-centered design in digital learning spaces.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest.


Bates, T. (2020, April 26). Crashing into online learning: A report from five continents—and some conclusions. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.

Daniel, J. (2021). After COVID-19: Can quality teaching be sustained? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 53(2), 6–10.

Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2018). Communities of transformation: Creating changes to deeply entrenched issues. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 832–864.

King, K. P. (2001). Professors’ transforming perspectives of teaching and learning while learning technology. The Journal of Faculty Development, 18(1), 27–34.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow, J., & Taylor, E. W. (Eds.). (2009). Transformative learning in practice: Insights from community, workplace, and higher education. Jossey-Bass.

Newman, T. (2017). Making an impact: Utilising faculty learning communities to enhance teaching and learning. In J. McDonald & A. Cater-Steel (Eds.), Communities of practice (pp. 423–435). Springer.

Wargo, K. (2021). Online faculty development: Disorienting dilemmas in learning to teach online (Paper 1627407585) [Doctoral dissertation, William & Mary]. W&M ScholarWorks.

Appendix A  Survey and Focus Group Interview Questions

Blended Teaching & Learning Survey

  • Q1. Overall, how challenging was it for you to convert your fall courses to a blended format?

    • ○ Extremely easy

    • ○ Somewhat easy

    • ○ Neither easy nor difficult

    • ○ Somewhat difficult

    • ○ Extremely difficult

  • Q2. Prior to Spring 2020, had you taught:

    • ○ Fully online course(s)

    • ○ Hybrid course(s) (a blend of online and face-to-face experiences)

    • ○ Both of the above

    • ○ Only face-to-face classes

  • Q3. Did you review and/or complete any portion of the blended learning [LMS] course?

    • ○ Yes

    • ○ No

  • Q4. What limited your participation in the course? (check all that apply)

    • ◻ I didn’t have the time

    • ◻ I didn’t need the support

    • ◻ I prefer learning in another way

    • ◻ I’m not teaching this fall

    • ◻ Other

  • Q5. Of the modules in the blended learning [LMS] course you reviewed/completed, how useful was each for you? [Note: this question was a matrix-style Likert scale format. Choices included N/A - Didn’t review, Extremely useful, Very useful, Moderately useful, Somewhat useful, Not at all useful.]

    • Module 1: Designing for Flexibility

    • Module 2: Mapping Your Course

    • Module 3: Creating Effective Learning Experiences

    • Module 4: Fostering Positive Student Engagement

  • Q6. What was the most significant challenge in shifting your course to a blended format? What made this so difficult for you?

  • Q7. How challenging has navigating this most significant challenge been for you?

    • ○ Not at all challenging

    • ○ Slightly challenging

    • ○ Somewhat challenging

    • ○ Very challenging

    • ○ Extremely challenging

  • Q8. What, if anything, from the blended learning course or your interactions with groups in the course, other colleagues, or [teaching center] staff helped you to navigate this challenge? (Check all that apply)

    • ◻ Course videos

    • ◻ Readings and documents

    • ◻ Planning guides

    • ◻ Video “how to” tutorials

    • ◻ Discussion board posts

    • ◻ Live meetups with groups in the Bb course

    • ◻ Consultation with a STLI [Studio for Teaching & Learning Innovation] team member

    • ◻ Consultation with a colleague

    • ◻ Meetings with departmental faculty

  • Q9. Were you able to solve your most significant challenge?

    • ○ Yes

    • ○ No

    • ○ Maybe

  • Q10. If not, what kinds of additional support might be helpful to you?

  • Q11. What, if anything, have you learned in this process of developing your Fall 2020 courses that may cause you to consider course planning (remote/blended or face-to-face) differently going forward?

  • Q12. What, if anything, about going through the blended/remote course development process influenced your preference for different teaching methods or technology tools?

  • Q13. How has this experience, if at all, challenged how you think about your role as a teacher or made you question or reconsider your teaching practice?

  • Q14. What questions and challenges are you left with in transitioning your course to a blended/remote format? And how might we help?

  • Q15. What types of resources and supports do you find most helpful in course design? Please drag and drop to rank the following options in order with the most helpful supports at the top.

    • ______ Dialogue with peers

    • ______ Individual consultation with [the teaching center]

    • ______ Structured online learning experiences (e.g., blended learning course)

    • ______ Joining in group discussions/meetups in the blended learning course

    • ______ On-demand videos/tutorials

    • ______ On-demand readings and resources

    • ______ Examples from peers

    • ______ Templates and course development guides

  • Q16. We would like additional feedback and information in the form of an interview to discuss your experience in converting your summer course in more depth with a member of the research team. We anticipate the interviews lasting no more than one hour. If you would be interested in participating, please add your name and email address below.

Focus Group Interview Questions

  1. How would you describe your teaching before you began participating in the blended learning @ [university] course?

  2. Tell me how you feel about teaching in the remote or blended context.

  3. How, if at all, did anything you learned in either of the professional development courses affect your current approach to teaching?

  4. How are you conceptualizing your role as an instructor now compared to before the blended learning @ [university] course?

  5. Were there any moments that made you question yourself as an instructor or your instructional practices?

  6. Have you experienced a change in your perspective about teaching? (if nothing, then skip to 8).

    1. Thinking back to these changes, what was the change? Please describe it. What do you think sparked it?

    2. What, if anything, will you do differently in your blended/remote teaching because of this change?

      1. Will your class preparation change? Please describe.

      2. Will your teaching style change? If so, how?

      3. Will student learning activities change? If so, how?

      4. Will your learning objectives for students change? If so, how?

      5. How might this change affect other aspects of your online teaching?

    3. What, if anything, will you do differently in your face-to-face teaching because of this change?

      1. Will your class preparation change? Please describe.

      2. Will your teaching style change? If so, how?

      3. Will student learning activities change? If so, how?

      4. Will your learning objectives for students change? If so, how?

      5. How might this change affect other aspects of your face-to-face teaching?

  7. How, if at all, did the course activities, group discussions, planning templates, or reflection exercises affect any change in the way you think about teaching?

  8. In what ways did the experience of remote teaching midway through spring semester affect your current approach to teaching? How about since then in summer and/or fall remote/blended teaching?

  9. How, if at all, has anything else outside of the blended learning @ [university] course affected your current perspective on teaching?

  10. What, if anything, do you do differently in your face-to-face teaching after the blended learning @ [university] course and in teaching remotely/blended this past summer or fall?

    1. Did your class preparation change? Please describe.

    2. Has your teaching style changed? If so, how?

    3. Have student learning activities changed? If so, how?

    4. Have your course learning objectives for students changed? If so, how?

    5. What about other aspects of your face-to-face teaching?

  11. How do you feel about the changes you referenced in the previous question? (interviewer can refer to notes for prompts if needed)