Higher education faculty are often hired as content experts with little to no formal training in teaching (Lowenthal, 2008; Serow et al., 2002; Van Waes et al., 2015). To address this problem, higher education institutions have increasingly created centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) to help teach faculty how to teach (Cruz et al., 2020). CTLs advance teaching quality by facilitating faculty development programs and initiatives that range from hour-long workshops to semester- or year-long communities of practice (Hines, 2017; Wright, Horii, et al., 2018). Still, faculty are busy, and their competing priorities often limit their attendance at and participation in CTL-derived faculty development (Lowenthal et al., 2013). Given this dilemma, CTLs have increasingly tried curating and creating online resources and online forms of faculty development to support, among other things, just-in-time learning (Forde & Carpenter, 2020). However, over time CTL websites can become a mess, a junk drawer, which can make it hard for faculty to find the information they seek (Dotson & Bernstein, 2010; Green & Little, 2017; Sipes et al., 2020).
CTL websites differ from other university websites in that they are designed to support the teaching and professional development of faculty members through a focused and tailored user experience (see Cruz et al., 2020; Wright, Horii, et al., 2018). Other university websites focus more broadly on university life (e.g., admission, student services, tuition), and the content on these websites is less targeted to faculty needs (see Astani & Elhindi, 2008; Meyer & Jones, 2011; Saichaie & Morphew, 2014). Furthermore, CTL websites may seamlessly integrate with other university systems (e.g., learning management systems, faculty evaluation systems) to achieve faculty development aims, whereas other university websites do not use or require this level of integration (see Elçi et al., 2019; McCullough & Buch, 2020). In this sense, CTL websites are more than static presentations of information; they are dynamic and must be updated continuously (see Hoffmann-Longtin et al., 2014; Lieberman, 2018; Sonnino et al., 2013).
Much of the literature on the design and information architecture of higher education websites stems from the study of academic libraries and institutional websites in their entirety (see Okhovati et al., 2017; Singla & Aggarwal, 2020; Yoon et al., 2016). Research suggests that the design of higher education websites influences usability, user satisfaction, and return visits (Fuller & Hinegardner, 2001; Gullikson et al., 1999; Massanelli et al., 2021). CTL websites are no exception; the design is an essential form of communication to the faculty they serve. Faculty need to find the website easy to use so that return visits, self-directed learning, and working relationships continue to grow.
CTL websites are cost-effective communication tools that leverage existing campus resources and expertise, but their design poses persistent challenges for CTL staff who may not be experts in web authoring, information architecture, or search engine optimization (see Hoffmann-Longtin et al., 2014; Truong et al., 2016). Despite their growing use as a tool for online faculty development, there is a lack of research specifically focused on the design of CTL websites (see Colby et al., 2022; Herman, 2012; Martin et al., 2019; Sweet et al., 2017). CTL websites have the potential to serve as portals connecting faculty to colleagues both locally and abroad and to provide opportunities for self-directed learning, anytime and anywhere delivery of resources, ease of access to just-in-time information, and collaborations among faculty and developers (Shea et al., 2002). However, more research is needed to better understand how CTL websites function as a means of online faculty development on their own. To address this gap, we conducted a qualitative case study to understand how the design of a CTL website impacts its end users. In the following article, we present our lessons learned from studying the case and present a framework for CTL websites as online faculty development.
Methodology
Researchers conduct an instrumental case study to gain insights about a phenomenon of interest (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stake, 1995, 2000). In the current study, our phenomenon of interest was CTL websites as a medium for online faculty development. We identified the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning (FCTL) website to study as our typical case. We conducted usability tests and expert evaluations to explore user experiences (Nielsen, 2012). Additionally, we conducted a retrospective analysis of the FCTL website activity using Google Analytics during the data collection period to shed light on (in)consistencies and opportunities for deeper insight of the phenomenon (Patton, 1999). We elaborate on the data collection and case context in subsequent sections.
Data Collection
Data were captured within a six-month period from July 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, in accordance with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) #HP-00094457 and research design. Data collection occurred in three phases, the first two ran concurrently: (1) moderated remote usability tests, (2) heuristic evaluation survey (Maier & Eckert, 2018; Moran, 2019b; Nielsen, 1994, 2012, 2024; Nielsen & Molich, 1990), and (3) Google Analytics. Moderated remote usability tests involved evaluators completing a series of routine tasks during a virtual session with a moderator; the session was recorded and analyzed to identify potential areas for improvement to the website (Mesa, 2013; Moran, 2019b; Moran & Pernice, 2020). Heuristic evaluation involved evaluators examining the website interface and judging its compliance with recognized usability principles (Nielsen, 1994; Nielsen & Molich, 1990) as well as the websites’ pedagogical efficacy and social dynamics (see Benson et al., 2002; Gallant et al., 2007; Mehlenbacher et al., 2005). Google Analytics was used to track and report website traffic and user behaviors (e.g., page views, average time on page, devices used) (see Marin et al., 2022; Rhode et al., 2015; Schoening & Oliver, 2016). We elaborate on each of these phases in the subsequent sections.
Phase 1: Moderated Remote Usability Tests
One researcher served as the usability tester in charge of recruiting a representative sample of faculty to serve as potential participants. The test administrator sent emails to participants informing them of the test logistics and providing them with the informed consent procedure. When participants voluntarily agreed to participate, the test administrator requested their availability and conducted the test at the appropriate and mutually agreed-upon date and time. Two participants who were not familiar with the FCTL website or activities completed moderated remote usability tests and were selected based on their representativeness of faculty rank, discipline, education, and age at the university. The non-probability sampling procedure provided different perspectives of typical case end users within the data collection period. Each remote usability test was conducted and recorded using Zoom video conferencing software and lasted approximately 21 minutes. During the session, the test administrator explained the procedure, encouraged participants to think aloud, and asked the participants to complete four tasks based on hypothetical scenarios:
Task #1: Find Consultations. Scenario: You have some questions about revisions you would like to make to one of your online courses. How would you go about scheduling a consultation to talk about your course?
Task #2: Find Workshops. Scenario: Where would you find information about workshops the center is offering for faculty?
Task #3: Find Course Design/Development. Scenario: You have been tasked with developing an online course and would like to learn more about what that process entails. Can you find this information on our website?
Task #4: Find a Specific Resource. Scenario: You would like to improve a course you quickly transitioned from face-to-face to online to ensure it reflects best practices in online learning. Where might you find information to help you do this?
Phase 2: Heuristic Evaluation Survey
A 20-item heuristic was developed to evaluate the efficacy of the website as a medium for online faculty development (see Appendix A). The heuristic consisted of six general web design items, seven teaching and learning items, and seven communication and information items (see Benson et al., 2002; Gallant et al., 2007; Mehlenbacher et al., 2005; Nielsen, 1994, 2024). The six general web design items were selected to evaluate the websites’ usability (see Nielsen, 1994). The seven teaching and learning items were selected to evaluate the pedagogical efficacy of the websites’ design (see Benson et al., 2002; Mehlenbacher et al., 2005). The seven communication and information items were selected and developed to evaluate the websites’ social dynamics (see Gallant et al., 2007; Mehlenbacher et al., 2005).
The heuristic, as a Qualtrics electronic survey, was emailed to a purposive sample of four expert evaluators who were external to the university. The evaluators were selected based on their publicly available CVs that listed their appointments as faculty or senior academic leaders in higher education institutions and because their work history demonstrated experience directing or developing CTLs, marketing CTL activities, and/or designing CTL websites and user experiences. Evaluators rated each item on a 5-point severity scale of usability: 0 (not an issue), 1 (cosmetic), 2 (minor issue), 3 (major issue), or 4 (catastrophic issue). Evaluators also provided open-ended responses to likes, dislikes, and recommendations for website improvement. Each heuristic evaluation took evaluators 22 minutes to complete on average. Three of the four evaluators had never visited the FCTL website prior to completing their evaluations.
Phase 3: Google Analytics
After completing the first two phases, we used Google Analytics to investigate the performance of the website over the six-month data collection period (Appendix B). Google Analytics enabled us to identify:
What pages are most popular on the site?
How long do site visitors view a page on average?
What devices are they using to access the site?
Data from all phases were analyzed for themes and patterns to shed light on complementary aspects of the same phenomenon. Triangulation, in this sense, was used to ensure that our account was rich, well developed, and facilitated a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. The account of our analysis of these multiple data sources was made to enhance the trustworthiness of our study as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Of additional significance to the present study is that the researchers espoused a pragmatic constructivist worldview in their analysis and held several meetings to discuss the findings and lessons learned to better understand multiple ways of seeing the data.
The impetus for this study came from the primary researchers’ interest in online faculty development and a desire to better understand how CTL websites might inherently function as professional development of this kind. The researchers involved in this study had several years of combined experience in CTL development, faculty development, online teaching and learning, and website design. Our inquiry began with a need for general understanding (Stake, 1995), recognizing that an instrumental case study “may be an object of study as well as a product of the inquiry” (Creswell & Poth, 2018, p. 98).
The Case Context
The FCTL website—that is, the instrumental case—is hosted as a subpage to the main UMB website. UMB is a research-driven university of seven schools: Medicine, Law, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing, Social Work, and an interdisciplinary Graduate School. In Fall 2021, the university employed 3,123 faculty, 2,637 executives/professionals, and 1,302 support personnel who either taught or supported professional or graduate courses for 6,314 students.
The Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning
In an effort to create more opportunities for faculty development, the university created the FCTL in 2019. The FCTL supports faculty in the execution of their roles through curating, creating, and collaborating on educational and professional development resources that reflect the unique interests of faculty at the institution. The center provides various services included but not limited to instructional design, multimedia production, assessment and evaluation tools, teaching workshops and consultations, and course design and serves as a hub for graduate teaching assistants and faculty learning communities.
In 2019, center staff included an executive director, four instructional designers, one media specialist, and one faculty liaison who were tasked with the development of the FCTL website (https://www.umaryland.edu/fctl) to coincide with the announcement of the center to the UMB community in Spring 2020. FCTL staff developed their website content using the institutions’ web content management system (WCMS), Terminal Four (T4). T4 allows university communication departments the ability to centralize web development across an institution through various roles, permissions, and templates.
Web Content Management System
A centralized WCMS is used to ensure a consistent look and feel (i.e., branding), improve accessibility, and ensure that web governance rules and workflows are followed (Bailie & Urbina, 2013; Barker, 2016; Lynch & Horton, 2016). Individual departments and centers are in charge of managing their web content and making creative design decisions.
Figure 1 details the FCTL design space that was confined between the institutional header and footer and to predetermined content types (e.g., general, three-column, slideshow, video gallery). A full list of the available content types is provided at the UMB Website Manual (https://www.umaryland.edu/cpa/website-manual/content-types/). The content was placed on the website using the T4 WYSIWYG editor and included text, images, hyperlinks, and videos.
Information Architecture
Before developing the current version of the FCTL website, we conducted an environmental scan of 40 different CTL websites. We found that these websites often organized their content in similar ways (e.g., using similar link texts; see Appendix C). Based on our scan, we decided to structure the FCTL website using five content categories: About, Programs, Services, Resources, and Events.
Website Launch
In conjunction with the initial launch of the FCTL website, the center surveyed UMB faculty, staff, and students for their CTL website preferences (e.g., desired services, programs, resources, and information to include). The survey did not receive sufficient responses to acutely inform the website design and development as the responses were not statistically significant to represent the entirety of the UMB community. However, according to the executive director, the findings provided some general insight as to what the FCTL might include and what to avoid.
Establishing web presence was paramount to first impressions of the CTL. The CTL website contributes to the UMB mission, addresses strategic objectives, provides a place for institutional stakeholders to learn more about the center, and initiates new working relationships across campus. After launching the website, staff members sought to explore the FCTL website as a potential medium for online faculty development and conducted the present case study in Fall 2021.
Lessons Learned
The usability test interviews, expert survey evaluations, and Google Analytics provided several insights into the user experiences of the FCTL website. We found that (1) the home page was critical to information architecture, and the splash page caused confusion; (2) the link texts serve as action items for site visitors, and succinct labeling is paramount to organizational systems hierarchies; and (3) static web pages encouraged self-directed learning. These findings align with previous research (see Moran, 2019a; Nielsen, 2002, 2011; Shea et al., 2002; Sherer et al., 2003; Sherwin, 2015; Whitenton, 2013; Wright, Lohe, & Little, 2018). We elaborate on our findings and lessons learned.
Lesson 1 Splash Home Pages May Cause Confusion
Google Analytics indicated that the home page was one of the most visited pages during the data collection period and that the average number of pages viewed per session (2.55) aligned with “unofficial industry standards” (see Arora, 2022; Littledata, 2022; Spinutech, 2015). However, both usability test participants and expert evaluators identified issues with the website’s home page. For instance, participants had difficulty navigating back to the home page, were unclear about the website’s purpose, struggled with locating contact information, and felt the first slideshow image on display was confusing. According to center staff, the home page was conceptualized as a splash page with a slideshow carousel of pertinent center announcements. Splash pages often feature powerful visuals with minimal text that are intended to captivate users to proceed further into the website (Ghamandi, 2021). However, the T4 WCMS confined the center’s design space between the institutional header and footer (see Figure 1). As such, the home page did not function as an actual splash page and instead caused confusion among participants.
Lesson 2 Short Link Texts May Improve Information Architecture
Website visitors rely on hyperlink texts to navigate from one page to the next (i.e., action items; see Nielsen, 2002), and these link texts significantly influence the discoverability of content (Moran, 2019a). Participants in this study found some of the longer link texts confusing (e.g., planning learning, facilitating learning) due to these items being too general and overlapping (Whitenton, 2013). Additionally, as gerunds, these link texts were markedly different from other subheadings, and this inconsistency may have caused confusion (Krause, 2021). Google Analytics indicated that home, about, programs, and resources were among the most visited pages during the data collection period and that the average time on these pages was shorter than the most popular subpages. Our inference is that the comparatively shorter times aligned with the content displayed on these pages (i.e., the subpages had much more content) and that the short link texts were perspicuous.
Lesson 3 Set-and-Forget Web Pages May Support Informal, Self-Directed Learning
CTL websites are often starting points for formal professional development programs, serving as communication hubs of campus initiatives and providing resources that promote self-directed learning (e.g., web pages, videos) (Shea et al., 2002; Sherer et al., 2003; Wright, Lohe, & Little, 2018). Expert evaluators in this study identified issues in the interactivity, instructional assessment, and learning design heuristics suggesting that this CTL website could not serve as a formal tool for professional development. Instead, this website and the resources provided on various pages (e.g., text, audio, video) may only encourage self-directed learning or connect users from one institutional happening to another. Expert evaluators also identified issues with the interactive creativity heuristic suggesting that site visitors do not have opportunities to communicate or socially interact with others on the site. The FCTL website pages were predominately variations of static multimedia presentations, some didactic though mostly informative. As such, users had to self-direct their learning.
Improvements
The staff focused their efforts on improving the website’s home page by addressing some of the usability and user experiences concerns identified. First, the default page layout within the T4 WCMS was used for the home page, moving the main navigation from large blue buttons in the center to a table of contents on the left with default fonts to maintain consistency and standards (see Krause, 2021; Loranger, 2017; Nielsen, 2024; Nielsen & Molich, 1990). Second, a photo of the center’s office location with a new tagline, “A partner in pedagogy across all seven schools,” and the center’s mission and background story were added. As a newly formed center, the hope was that these changes would better explain the FCTL purpose to first-time site visitors (see Nielsen, 2002). Third, a contact information box was added at the left of the screen and included a consultation request link. Finally, the FCTL podcast, Moving the Needle, was affixed below the main navigation table of contents and above the contact information box with a text description. In this way, the FCTL was able to feature the most recent podcast episode that links to a permanent episode archive and remains constant throughout users’ navigation (see Nielsen, 2002). Figure 2 details screenshots of the FCTL website before data collection (left) and after data analysis (right). Interestingly, a comparison of Google Analytics activity before and after the improvements showed that, on average, site visitors stayed on the home page around 10 seconds longer, suggesting that engagement with the home page may have increased.
Note. Screenshot of FCTL home page captured before data collection in 2021 (left) and after data analysis in 2022 (right).
The FCTL also expanded the responsiveness of the website content presented across devices (e.g., desktop, mobile, tablet). Google Analytics revealed that users predominately used desktop computers to access the website, mobile devices were used less frequently, and tablets were rarely used during the data collection period. However, the analytics also revealed that there was a slow trend emerging in the growth of mobile and tablet access. While the T4 WCMS is a responsive and dynamic system, attention to staff-developed content and the responsiveness and accessibility thereof still needed to be considered. Mobile-friendly design was a primary focus of the FCTL website improvements, and this process consisted of reviewing and updating the WYSIWYG editor content and the layout or order of each content block on each page to provide a consistent look and feel across devices. Additionally, each web page was reviewed for compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) and updated as appropriate (e.g., adding image alt text, providing audio/video transcription, adjusting color contrast).
Discussion
Given that CTL websites and online faculty development continue to grow (see Belt & Lowenthal, 2020; Herman, 2012; Kelley et al., 2017), greater attention to this distinct medium of professional development is needed to better understand the influence, scope, and reach of this phenomenon on the academy. Previous research has found that adjunct faculty in particular draw significant support from their institutional websites (Chun et al., 2019). The findings of this case study led us to consider online community formation and formal and informal learning via CTL websites in greater depth.
CTL websites are rarely considered web-based communities as there are no formalized membership systems, there are no ways for users to personalize the interface, and there is seldom opportunity for users to insert their identity other than within a comments section (see Gallant et al., 2007). However, the underpinnings of community formation were present on this CTL website, which aligns with previous research (see Sherer et al., 2003). With some minor modification, CTL websites could serve as a place for faculty to share their identities, chat, and grow as a community. For instance, CTL website designers could expand specific pages to include asynchronous discussion forums or synchronous chat features, specific pages could be transitioned to wikis, or specific pages could require login credentials. Such changes would require greater attention to and facilitation of faculty interactions on CTL websites by CTL staff. Nevertheless, faculty visiting CTL websites may be drawn to certain pages based on common interests that are ripe for community formation, and they may find this medium of professional development more efficient and effective than others.
Faculty perusing CTL websites is an informal professional development activity. As this case has shown, site visitors had to self-direct their learning. However, CTLs are the institutions’ pedagogical powerhouses, and their websites should at least proffer an opportunity for formal professional development as visitors navigate them. In order for a website to become more than static multimedia pages, users need to be able to identify themselves on the site, interact with other users, and receive some form of feedback (i.e., collaborative or evaluative). For example, CTL websites could include a live “chat with an ID” tool to provide just-in-time support, didactic pages could be modified to blogs that invite comments from end users, or attributes of the information architecture could be made adaptive and individualized for every user. CTLs would likely need to establish goals, benchmarks, and creative evaluation metrics to assess the impact of such changes on their website relative to faculty development.
Enabling greater interactivity with CTL websites can expand online faculty development efforts in measurable ways (see Stark & Smith, 2016; Sweet et al., 2017; Yuan et al., 2019). For example, adding social opportunities to what would otherwise be considered a non-social website could increase interactivity (Kim et al., 2010). By enabling user inputs and social features (e.g., online assessments, live chat, blogs, wikis, page ratings, reviews, or crowdsourcing), CTLs can analyze competencies, shortfalls, or topics of interest and expand the ways in which they support the faculty of their home institutions. CTLs can also track the number of consultations initiated through the website, the number and nature of live chat support instances, and online assessment results. Furthermore, CTLs can glean insights from Google Analytics or similar software tools about user interactivity to drive professional development. For instance, highly rated content might indicate interest or signal a professional development need, or most visited pages might signal a need for a more formal learning community.
Given the evolving landscape of higher education that is expanding with more flexible and remote working arrangements (see Smyth et al., 2021), websites have increasingly become more vital to the communication and information exchange taking place between faculty and their home institutions (Almahamid et al., 2016; Chun et al., 2019). As such, we present a framework for CTL websites as online faculty development (see Figure 2).
Framework
It is our contention that certain CTL website features (e.g., blogs, wikis, ratings, live chat) may enable faculty to engage with online faculty development in systematic ways that involve two-way interaction, although there is no guarantee that they will engage (Lowenthal, 2008; Lowenthal et al., 2013). Figure 3 portrays how CTL website pages, content, and features can produce measurable responses (e.g., quiz results, chat transcripts, user ratings, page reviews) that can distinguish CTL websites as a medium for online faculty development. For instance, faculty might be afforded the opportunity to create a profile with login credentials, chat in real-time with a CTL staff member, or rate pages. They might also create pages of their own, form or join community subpages, contribute comments to an ongoing discussion, or provide content reviews. As faculty interact with CTL content, the website could track and adapt to their input. After answering true/false or multiple-choice questions, for example, faculty could be directed to different pages or be awarded certificates based on their responses. In this schema, scaffolding, support, and faculty contribution are intentional and may help guide faculty in their learning and development.
Note. The contextual examples provided are subpages where faculty visitors might give or receive feedback, earn a credential, or socially interact with other site visitors, the website content, or the website designers. The icons represent various ways interaction and evaluation might occur and include a chat box, a sequence of content, a star rating, a certificate, groups of people, an evaluation mark, an editable web page, live chat, a user profile, data analytics, a badge, and multimedia. The looping circle represents online faculty development that can be systematically designed and evaluated.
In Table 1, our framework posits that the following five aspects and key components are essential to CTL websites as a medium for online faculty development. By emphasizing accessibility, content, engagement, evaluation, and sustainability (ACEES) in the design and development process, CTL websites can function as a distinct form of online faculty development. Given the changing workforce dynamics in higher education, and a continued reliance on communication technologies for teaching and learning, further research on CTL websites as a burgeoning medium for online faculty development is needed. As such, we invite empirical investigations of the ACEES framework in different contexts and studies.
Framework Components for Enhancing Online Faculty Development via CTL Websites
Aspect |
Key components |
|---|---|
Accessibility |
|
Content |
|
Engagement |
|
Evaluation |
|
Sustainability |
|
Future Research
Future studies should explore the impact, efficacy, and influence of CTL websites as online faculty development. Currently, web analytics are commonly used to measure the impact of a website (e.g., page visits, frequency, length of stay, source acquisitions). However, many quantitative and qualitative questions of how and why site visitors interact with CTL websites are still looming. With the wealth of information openly available across all CTL websites, do faculty prefer using their own institutions’ CTL websites? Does the presentation of information on a CTL website influence credibility? How do faculty use CTL websites to improve their teaching practices? Do faculty prefer CTL websites over other forms of professional development? What impact do CTL websites have on faculty teaching, student learning outcomes, and/or professional development? Different theories might provide insights into phenomena such as self-directed learning (Tough, 1966), adult learning theory (Knowles, 1970), connectivism (Siemens, 2005), planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), or the cognitive theory of multimedia learning (Mayer, 1997).
Limitations
The findings of this study cannot be generalized to all CTL websites. Readers will have to manage this limitation to assess the credibility, triangulation, and transferability of the findings in their own individual contexts as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Faculty who volunteered to participate in the usability tests and evaluation survey may have been more familiar with the CTL website than was initially communicated, they may have censored their comments and feedback, and the expertise of evaluators was self-identified. Furthermore, the purposive sampling procedures discussed in the first two data collection phases were adopted within the case and bound by time, space, and activity. Larger sample sizes in these phases may have yielded different results, although the small sample size is common to qualitative research and usability testing (see Nielsen, 2012; Schoch, 2020), and the data collected were intended to shed light on the phenomenon of CTL websites as a medium for online faculty development.
Conclusion
In higher education it is common for one activity to have multiple interpretations (e.g., online learning, online teaching) or similar constructs to have multiple terms (e.g., heutagogy, self-determined learning) that make labeling and categorization daunting. Moreover, how users come to know educational terminology is often based on previous exposures that influence their navigational experiences, making universal ideals of simple and intuitive use quite complicated and counterintuitive. However, the hierarchical organization of content categories established by the FCTL (i.e., About, Programs, Services, Resources, and Events) were short link texts and an information architecture that appeared to support user experiences and site navigation.
CTL website designers might consider the five topic-based categories presented in this case as an essential top level in their organizational hierarchy to promote external consistency across the field. Still, subgrouping categories would remain a challenge. The FCTL found that environmental scanning combined with adhering to a continuum of consistency (see Krause, 2021) and generating link texts that were specific, sincere, substantial, and succinct (see Moran, 2019a) helped guide the information architecture and supported user experiences.
Designers might also consider collaborating with their marketing and communication departments if interested in developing a distinct splash page and to determine whether branching away from an institutional brand (i.e., headers, footers, consistency) is warranted given the potential usability risks and the scope of the CTL (see Krause, 2021). It may be tempting to want to “make a splash” as was the intent in this case, but the challenges splash screens present are difficult to overcome from a usability perspective, given the fact that users spend most of their time on other sites (Nielsen, 2000, 2011).
Google Analytics data are perhaps best aligned with the purpose and goals of a CTL website. For instance, tracking the average session duration, average time on page, and/or pages per session might give an indication of engagement. If the goal is to have visitors stay on certain pages longer than others, then these pages could be tracked or benchmarks created. Nevertheless, the longer time spent on subpages is likely ideal. Short visits on the home page might suggest that users are able to navigate the information architecture efficiently, combined with prolonged engagement on subpages (e.g., specific resources, specific programs, specific team members, specific services). In this case, the most popular pages were two specific subpages from the Resources category that described problem-based learning and creating a rubric in detail; these pages included substantial text, several images, a few videos, and a number of references.
At times, website maintenance at higher education institutions may be of low priority and importance (Susanto et al., 2019). Web pages are subject to abandonment with staff turnover, strategic planning changes, or departmental shifting of roles and responsibilities. The fluidity of such change is rarely reflected in institutional web pages, resulting in dated, inaccessible, or inaccurate information being displayed. While some content may remain static over time (e.g., institutional mission statements), most content changes. Whether by design or happenstance, static web pages on CTL websites are not truly responsive to users’ needs, they run the risk of becoming outdated, and there are missed opportunities for CTL staff and site visitors to interact.
CTL website designers should continue to develop evidence-based, openly available educational resources that perpetuate the informal interactivity occurring between faculty and faculty developers across the academy. Information sharing is the essence of CTLs, and their websites should funnel users efficiently to their desired aims. This study also led us to consider the need for CTL websites to infuse diversity, equity, and inclusion into the design of the website to achieve a more culturally focused information architecture (see Fiorito, 2014). In other words, particular care and attention should be taken in the design process of CTL websites to develop culturally sensitive, diverse, and equitable resources as more than just static pages or bulleted lists of references.
User interaction with CTL websites is a form of professional development that affords any time, any place learning. Such forms of online professional development that are not limited by time or physical space are growing at educational institutions (Belt & Lowenthal, 2020), and greater attention to this unique medium of professional development is needed. This study is a small contribution to that end and invites further exploration of the lessons learned and the framework presented in various contexts. The CTL website is a prominent touchpoint between faculty and faculty developers. As such, CTLs should consider emergent ways in which site visitor interactions could be enhanced and user experiences improved.
Biographies
Eric S. Belt, EdD, is an Adjunct Assistant Professor and Senior Academic Innovation Specialist in the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He teaches qualitative research methods courses, crafts online and blended learning experiences, and supports faculty and graduate student professional development and scholarly work. His research interests are in communication, interaction, and connectedness in online learning environments. Specifically, he explores the teacher-student relationship in distance education to advance an understanding and the practice of online pedagogy.
Becky Menendez, MA, MEd, is a Senior Academic Innovation Specialist in the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. Her expertise is in postsecondary educational practice and curriculum design, particularly with English language learners. She has supported online course development worldwide and provided feedback and guidance to faculty and institutions on improving the quality of their online courses as a trained Quality Matters peer reviewer.
Christina M. Cestone, PhD, is the Assistant Vice Provost of Faculty Affairs at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB). Dr. Cestone has launched several inaugural projects at UMB, including the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning (FCTL) in Academic Affairs and the Health Professions Education (HPE) programs in the Graduate School. Her research interests are in program evaluation models and techniques, learner assessment, and curriculum and instructional development involving active learning methods.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have no conflict of interest.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-thttps://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t
Almahamid, S. M., Tweiqat, A. F., & Almanaseer, M. S. (2016). University website quality characteristics and success: Lecturers’ perspective. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 22(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2016.075717https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIS.2016.075717
Arora, P. (2022, October 12). Pages per session. Klipfolio MetricHQ. https://www.metrichq.org/marketing/page-views-per-session/https://www.metrichq.org/marketing/page-views-per-session/
Astani, M., & Elhindi, M. A. (2008). An empirical study of university websites. Issues in Information Systems, 9(2), 460–465. https://doi.org/10.48009/2_iis_2008_460-465https://doi.org/10.48009/2_iis_2008_460-465
Bailie, R. A., & Urbina, N. (2013). Content strategy: Connecting the dots between business, brand, and benefits. XML Press.
Barker, D. (2016). Web content management: Systems, features, and best practices. O’Reilly Media.
Belt, E., & Lowenthal, P. (2020). Developing faculty to teach with technology: Themes from the literature. TechTrends, 64(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00447-6https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00447-6
Benson, L., Elliott, D., Grant, M., Holschuh, D., Kim, B., Kim, H., Lauber, E., Loh, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2002). Usability and instructional design heuristics for e-learning evaluation. In P. Barker & S. Rebelsky (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2002—World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia & telecommunications (pp. 1615–1621). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/10234/https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/10234/
Chun, H., Richardson, B., & Iwamoto, D. (2019). Higher education support for adjunct faculty on institutional websites. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 19(3), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i3.2114https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v19i3.2114
Colby, S. A., Cruz, L., Cordaro, D., & Cruz, C. (2022). Fellow travelers: Taking stock of faculty fellows programs in the age of organizational development. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 41(2), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.844https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.844
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Cruz, L., Parker, M. A., Smentkowski, B., & Smitherman, M. (2020). Taking flight: Making your center for teaching and learning soar. Stylus Publishing.
Dotson, W. H., & Bernstein, D. J. (2010). A model for putting a teaching center in context. To Improve the Academy, 28(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0028.009https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0028.009
Elçi, A., Beith, L. L., & Elçi, A. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of research on faculty development for digital teaching and learning. IGI Global.
Fiorito, D. (2014). Toward a culturally focused information architecture. In A. Resmini (Ed.), Reframing information architecture (pp. 71–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06492-5_6https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06492-5_6
Forde, T., & Carpenter, R. (2020). Situating inclusive excellence in faculty development programs and practices. Journal of Faculty Development: A Journal of Educational Development, 34(3), 101–105.
Fuller, D. M., & Hinegardner, P. G. (2001). Ensuring quality website redesign: The University of Maryland’s experience. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(4), 339–345.
Gallant, L. M., Boone, G. M., & Heap, A. (2007). Five heuristics for designing and evaluating web-based communities. First Monday, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i3.1626https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i3.1626
Ghamandi, G. (2021, May 17). What is a splash page? Definition, importance, and benefits with tips and examples [Blog post]. Lander Academy. https://landerapp.com/blog/what-is-a-splash-page/https://landerapp.com/blog/what-is-a-splash-page/
Green, D. A., & Little, D. (2017). On the other side of the wall: The miscategorization of educational developers in the United States? To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 36(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.204https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.204
Gullikson, S., Blades, R., Bragdon, M., McKibbon, S., Sparling, M., & Toms, E. G. (1999). The impact of information architecture on academic web site usability. The Electronic Library, 17(5), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640479910330714https://doi.org/10.1108/02640479910330714
Herman, J. H. (2012). Faculty development programs: The frequency and variety of professional development programs available to online instructors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(5), 87–106. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i5.282https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v16i5.282
Hines, S. R. (2017). Evaluating centers for teaching and learning: A field-tested model. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 36(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.202https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0036.202
Hoffmann-Longtin, K., Palmer, M. M., Welch, J. L., Walvoord, E. C., & Dankoski, M. E. (2014). Just ask: Using faculty input to inform communication strategies. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 33(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20002https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20002
Kelley, B., Cruz, L., & Fire, N. (2017). Moving toward the center: The integration of educational development in an era of historic change in higher education. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 36(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20052https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20052
Kim, W., Jeong, O.-R., & Lee, S.-W. (2010). On social web sites. Information Systems, 35(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2009.08.003
Knowles, M. S. (1970). The modern practice of adult education: Andragogy versus pedagogy. Association Press.
Krause, R. (2021, January 10). Maintain consistency and adhere to standards (usability heuristic #4). Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/consistency-and-standards/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/consistency-and-standards/
Lieberman, M. (2018, February 27). Centers of the pedagogical universe. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/02/28/centers-teaching-and-learning-serve-hub-improving-teachinghttps://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/02/28/centers-teaching-and-learning-serve-hub-improving-teaching
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Littledata. (2022, September 28). What is an average pages per session? Littledata. https://www.littledata.io/average/pages-per-session-(all-devices)https://www.littledata.io/average/pages-per-session-(all-devices
Loranger, H. (2017, July 23). Homepage links remain a necessity. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/homepage-links/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/homepage-links/
Lowenthal, P. R. (2008). Online faculty development and storytelling: An unlikely solution to improving teacher quality. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(3), 349–356.
Lowenthal, P. R., Wray, M. L., Bates, B., Switzer, T., & Stevens, E. (2013). Examining faculty motivation to participate in faculty development. International Journal of University Teaching and Faculty Development, 3(3), 149–164.
Lynch, P. J., & Horton, S. (2016). Web style guide: Foundations of user experience design (4th ed.). Yale University Press.
Maier, A., & Eckert, S. (2018, November 14). Introduction to remote moderated usability testing, part 1: What and why. 18F. https://18f.gsa.gov/2018/11/14/introduction-to-remote-moderated-usabiliy-testing-part-1/https://18f.gsa.gov/2018/11/14/introduction-to-remote-moderated-usabiliy-testing-part-1/
Marin, L. F., Valgardson, B. A., & Watson, E. (2022). Evaluation in the time of crisis: Evidencing value at a centre for teaching and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal for Academic Development, 27(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2022.2082437https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144x.2022.2082437
Martin, F., Wang, C., Budhrani, K., Moore, R. L., & Jokiaho, A. (2019). Professional development support for the online instructor: Perspectives of US and German instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 22(3).
Massanelli, J., Sexton, K. W., Lesher, C. T., Jensen, H. K., Kimbrough, M. K., Privratsky, A., Taylor, J. R., & Bhavaraju, A. (2021). Integration of web analytics into graduate medical education: Usability study. JMIR Formative Research, 5(12), e29748. https://doi.org/10.2196/29748https://doi.org/10.2196/29748
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1
McCullough, H., & Buch, K. (2020). Using certificates to engage faculty in professional development. Current Issues in Education, 21(2), 1–8. https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1924https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1924
Mehlenbacher, B., Bennett, L., Bird, T., Ivey, M., Lucas, J., Morton, J., & Whitman, L. (Eds.). (2005). Usable e-learning: A conceptual model for evaluation and design. In Proceedings of HCI International 2005: Volume 4—Theories, models, and processes in HCI. Mira Digital. http://www.hci.international/index.php?module=conference&CF_op=view&CF_id=4http://www.hci.international/index.php?module=conference&CF_op=view&CF_id=4
Mesa, K. (2013, June 12). Report template: Usability test [Usability.gov document]. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/resources/templates/report-template-usability-test.htmlhttps://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/resources/templates/report-template-usability-test.html
Meyer, K. A., & Jones, S. (2011). Information found and not found: What university websites tell students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(3), 1–10.
Moran, K. (2019a, March 24). Better link labels: 4Ss for encouraging clicks. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/better-link-labels/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/better-link-labels/
Moran, K. (2019b, December 1). Usability testing 101. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-101/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-101/
Moran, K., & Pernice, K. (2020, April 26). Remote moderated usability tests: How to do them. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/moderated-remote-usability-test/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/moderated-remote-usability-test/
Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25–62). John Wiley & Sons.
Nielsen, J. (2000, July 22). End of web design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/end-of-web-design/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/end-of-web-design/
Nielsen, J. (2002, May 11). Top 10 guidelines for homepage usability. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/top-ten-guidelines-for-homepage-usability/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/top-ten-guidelines-for-homepage-usability/
Nielsen, J. (2011, March 13). Can hated design elements be made to work? Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/making-hated-design-elements-work/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/making-hated-design-elements-work/
Nielsen, J. (2012, June 3). How many test users in a usability study? Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-many-test-users/
Nielsen, J. (2024, January 30). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In J. C. Chew & J. Whiteside (Eds.), CHI ’90: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 249–256). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
Okhovati, M., Karami, F., & Khajouei, R. (2017). Exploring the usability of the central library websites of medical sciences universities. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 49(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616650932https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616650932
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Services Research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1189–1208. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10591279https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10591279
Rhode, J., Richter, S., Gowen, P., & Krishnamurthi, M. (2015). Measuring digital professional development: Analytics for the use of web and social media. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 7(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-02-2014-0023https://doi.org/10.1108/jarhe-02-2014-0023
Saichaie, K., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). What college and university websites reveal about the purposes of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 499–530. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0024https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2014.0024
Schoch, K. (2020). Case study research. In G. J. Burkholder, K. A. Cox, L. M. Crawford, & J. H. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 245–258). Sage Publications.
Schoening, A. M., & Oliver, S. (2016). Connect, change, and conserve: Building a virtual center for teaching excellence. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 35(2), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20046https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20046
Serow, R. C., Van Dyk, P. B., McComb, E. M., & Harrold, A. T. (2002). Cultures of undergraduate teaching at research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020416306430https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020416306430
Shea, T., Sherer, P. D., & Kristensen, E. W. (2002). Harnessing the potential of online faculty development: Challenges and opportunities. To Improve the Academy, 20(1), 162–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2002.tb00580.xhttps://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2002.tb00580.x
Sherer, P. D., Shea, T. P., & Kristensen, E. (2003). Online communities of practice: A catalyst for faculty development. Innovative Higher Education, 27(3), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022355226924https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022355226924
Sherwin, K. (2015, September 7). Audience-based navigation: 5 reasons to avoid it. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/audience-based-navigation/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/audience-based-navigation/
Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). https://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htmhttps://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Singla, B. S., & Aggarwal, H. (2020). Effect of information architecture on the usability of a university website: A comparative study of selected websites of Punjab (India). International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies, 11(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdst.2020010104https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdst.2020010104
Sipes, S. M., Minix, A. L., & Barton, M. (2020). Building a social network around SoTL through digital space. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 39(1), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.108https://doi.org/10.3998/tia.17063888.0039.108
Smyth, C., Cortis, N., & Powell, A. (2021). University staff and flexible work: Inequalities, tensions and challenges. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1857504https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1857504
Sonnino, R. E., Reznik, V., Thorndyke, L. A., Chatterjee, A., Ríos-Bedoya, C. F., Mylona, E., Nelson, K. G., Weisman, C. S., Morahan, P. S., & Wadland, W. C. (2013). Evolution of faculty affairs and faculty development offices in U.S. medical schools: A 10-year follow-up survey. Academic Medicine, 88(9), 1368–1375. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31829ed496https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31829ed496
Spinutech. (2015, October 13). 7 website analytics that matter most. Spinutech. https://www.spinutech.com/digital-marketing/analytics/analysis/7-website-analytics-that-matter-most/https://www.spinutech.com/digital-marketing/analytics/analysis/7-website-analytics-that-matter-most/
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Sage Publications.
Stark, A. M., & Smith, G. A. (2016). Communities of practice as agents of future faculty development. The Journal of Faculty Development, 30(2), 59–67.
Susanto, A., Rahmaini, S. N., Putra, S. J., & Mintarsih, F. (2019, November 6–8). Evaluating web quality and its influential factors in higher education: A comparative study [Paper presentation]. 7th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Jakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM47753.2019.8965360https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM47753.2019.8965360
Sweet, C., Carpenter, R., & Blythe, H. (2017). Reaching those faculty not easily reached: How CTLs can improve participation in faculty programming through faculty innovators and online instruction. Journal on Centers for Teaching and Learning, 9, 73–83.
Tough, A. (1966). The assistance obtained by adult self-teachers. Adult Education, 17(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171366601700105https://doi.org/10.1177/074171366601700105
Truong, M. H., Juillerat, S., & Gin, D. H. C. (2016). Good, fast, cheap: How centers of teaching and learning can capitalize in today’s resource-constrained context. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 35(1), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20032https://doi.org/10.1002/tia2.20032
Van Waes, S., Van den Bossche, P., Moolenaar, N. M., De Maeyer, S., & Van Petegem, P. (2015). Know-who? Linking faculty’s networks to stages of instructional development. Higher Education, 70(5), 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9868-8https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9868-8
Whitenton, K. (2013, November 10). Flat vs. deep website hierarchies. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-vs-deep-hierarchy/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-vs-deep-hierarchy/
Wright, M., Horii, C. V., Felten, P., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Kaplan, M. (2018). Faculty development improves teaching and learning. POD Speaks, 2(2), 1–5.
Wright, M. C., Lohe, D. R., & Little, D. (2018). The role of a center for teaching and learning in a de-centered educational world. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(6), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1540826https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2018.1540826
Yoon, K., Hulscher, L., & Dols, R. (2016). Accessibility and diversity in library and information science: Inclusive information architecture for library websites. The Library Quarterly, 86(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1086/685399https://doi.org/10.1086/685399
Yuan, S., Mukherjee, S., Vyas, R., & Burdick, W. P. (2019). Using a theory of change for evaluation: Has the FAIMER international faculty development program improved the field of health professions education? MedEdPublish, 8(50), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2019.000050.1https://doi.org/10.15694/mep.2019.000050.1
Appendix A. Heuristic
General Web Design Heuristics |
||
|---|---|---|
Nielsen (1994) |
Match between system and the real world |
The website should speak the users’ language, with words, phrases, and concepts familiar to the user rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. |
Consistency and standards |
Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. |
|
Recognition rather than recall |
Minimize the user’s memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the website should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. |
|
Flexibility and efficiency of use |
Accelerators—unseen by the novice user—may often speed up the interaction for the expert user such that the website can cater to both inexperienced and experienced users. Allow users to tailor frequent actions. |
|
Aesthetic and minimalist design |
Dialogues should not contain information that is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. |
|
Help and documentation |
Even though it is better if the website can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search for, focused on the user’s task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. |
|
Teaching and Learning Heuristics |
||
Benson et al. (2002) |
Interactivity |
The website provides content-related interactions and tasks that support meaningful learning. |
Message design |
The website presents information in accord with sound information processing principles. |
|
Learning design |
The interactions in the website have been designed in accord with sound principles of learning theory. |
|
Media integration |
The inclusion of media in the website serves clear pedagogical and/or motivational purposes. |
|
Instructional assessment |
The website provides assessment opportunities that are aligned with objectives and content. |
|
Resources |
The website provides access to all the resources necessary to support effective learning. |
|
Mehlenbacher et al. (2005) |
Learner tasks and activities |
The website is easily readable with high-quality writing. |
Communication and Information Hub Heuristics |
||
Mehlenbacher et al. (2005) |
Social dynamics |
Mutual goals and outcomes of site visitors are captured in the website content. |
Gallant et al. (2007) |
Interactive creativity |
Site visitors have opportunities to communicate and actively interact. |
Selection hierarchy |
The website groups information into more meaningful clusters for users. |
|
Current study |
Community |
The website encourages, disseminates, and creates opportunities for online communities to form. |
Representative |
The website models the institutional culture of the faculty it serves. |
|
Timely |
The website portrays current news and events. |
|
Targeted |
Communication prose is aptly applied to target audiences. |
|
Appendix B. Google Analytics
Page title |
Avg. time on page |
Avg. session duration |
Pages/session |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
/problem-based-Learning-pbl |
00:02:47 |
00:00:28 |
1.09 |
2 |
/creating-a-rubric |
00:04:58 |
00:00:22 |
1.07 |
3 |
/fctl |
00:00:55 |
00:03:02 |
2.55 |
4 |
/professional-development-coaching |
00:03:25 |
00:01:11 |
1.33 |
5 |
/team |
00:01:20 |
00:05:53 |
3.99 |
6 |
/graduate-teaching-assistants |
00:04:28 |
00:02:24 |
1.55 |
7 |
/programs |
00:00:23 |
00:38:22 |
62.75 |
8 |
/about |
00:00:52 |
00:00:16 |
57.25 |
9 |
/resources |
00:01:24 |
null |
null |
10 |
/course-design |
00:02:28 |
00:00:36 |
1.93 |
Appendix C. CTL Website Home Page Link Texts (as of August 17, 2022)
Ct |
Institution |
Center |
Home page link texts (main navigation) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
University system of Maryland |
1 |
University of Maryland, Eastern Shore |
Center for Teaching Excellence |
Leave a Comment, High-Impact Practices, Teaching Innovations, 2021 Series for New Faculty, Faculty Awards, Faculty Publications, Faculty Forum on Bb, About Us |
2 |
University of Maryland, College Park |
Teaching & Learning Transformation Center |
About Us, Instructors, Students, Academic Administrators, Researchers |
|
3 |
University of Maryland, Baltimore County |
Faculty Development Center |
Home, Services, Teaching, Communities, Innovation, Research, Assessment, Resources, About |
|
4 |
University of Baltimore |
Center for Excellence in Learning, Teaching and Technology |
Sakai, Programs & Services, Faculty Development, Contact Us, Bee-Flex, LMS Review Project |
|
5 |
Towson University |
Faculty Academic Center of Excellence at Towson |
Events, Programs, Services, Research & Scholarship Resources, Teaching Resources, Emerging Technology, About Us |
|
6 |
Salisbury University |
Instructional Design & Delivery |
MyClasses, Instructional Software, Workshops & ID&D Calendar, Faculty Development, Online Learning, Services, Instructional Designer Liaisons, ID&D Knowledgebase, Staff |
|
7 |
Bowie State University |
Center for Excellence in Teaching & Learning |
Faculty Institute, Adjunct Faculty Institute, Faculty Professional Development, Become a HIT Instructor, About CETL |
|
8 |
Frostburg State University |
Center for Teaching Excellence |
CTE Home, CTEAG Membership |
|
9 |
Coppin State University |
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning |
Our Purpose, Share General Feedback, Events, Request to Present, Faculty Resources, Needs Assessment |
|
Maryland |
10 |
United States Naval Academy |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
CTL, Home, Programs, Educational Technologies, Teaching Awards, Faculty Resources, Teaching Resources, CTL Conferences and Workshops, Workshops on Demand, Photo Gallery, Ed Tech Resources, Contact Information |
11 |
Morgan State University |
Center for Innovative Instruction & Scholarship |
About |
|
12 |
Goucher College |
Center for the Advancement of Scholarship and Teaching |
Home, Blog, Workshops, Teaching, Scholarship |
|
13 |
Hood College |
Center for Teaching & Learning |
About |
|
14 |
Loyola University Maryland |
Office of Digital Teaching & Learning |
Home, About Us, Course Design, Programs and Projects, Tools |
|
15 |
Maryland Institute College of Art |
Center for Teaching Innovation & Exchange |
Mission & Vision, Programs, Resources, Services, Graduate Teaching Internship, Submit a Question or Idea, Educational Technology |
|
16 |
Mount St. Mary’s University |
Center for Instructional Design and Delivery |
Student Resources, Faculty Resources |
|
17 |
Washington College |
Cromwell Center for Teaching and Learning |
Advisory Board, Funding Opportunities, Resources, Cromwell Fellowships for Faculty, Masticate and Confabulate, Teaching Clusters |
|
18 |
Johns Hopkins University |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
Programs & Services, Tools & Tech, Teaching, Publications, Contact |
|
Other U.S. states |
19 |
University of Washington |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
Home, Topics, Learn With Us, News & Events, About, Contact |
20 |
University of Pennsylvania |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
Home, Contact CTL Staff, Programs & Services, Resources for Teaching at Penn, Teaching Practices and Strategies, Events |
|
21 |
University of Pittsburgh |
University Center for Teaching and Learning |
Learning Initiatives, Technology Resources, Teaching Support, News & Events, About |
|
22 |
University of Oregon |
Center on Teaching and Learning |
Research, Innovation, People, About |
|
23 |
The University of Texas at Austin |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
Instructional Strategies, Teaching with Technology, Programs & Initiatives, Grants & Fellowships, About |
|
24 |
Vanderbilt University |
Center for Teaching |
Home, Services, Programs, Orientations, Events, Guides, Resources, About, Connect |
|
25 |
University of California, Berkeley |
Center for Teaching & Learning |
Home, About, Consulting, Programs, Resources, Spotlights on Teaching & Learning |
|
26 |
University of Delaware |
Center for Teaching & Assessment of Learning |
About Us, Programs, Services, Resources, CTAL Library, Confidentiality |
|
27 |
Virginia Tech |
Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning |
Home, Programs, Services, Teaching as Research, Grants and Awards, Academy for Experiential Learning, Thank-A-Teacher Program, Teaching in the News, Staff Directory, Teaching Resources, Course Design, Resources, Newsletter, Archive, Bridge Experience Program |
|
28 |
University of Virginia |
Center for Teaching Excellence |
Workshops & Events, Programs & Grants, Research & Resources, ConneCTEd, About |
|
29 |
Virginia Commonwealth University |
Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence & Faculty Success |
Events, Initiatives, Resources, About |
|
30 |
West Virginia University |
Teaching and Learning Commons |
Home, About Us, Programs and Services, Events & Workshops, Quality Matters, Resources, Academic Technology |
|
31 |
Shepherd University |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
Home, Meet the Team, Faculty Support and Teaching Tools, Focus on Student Learning Series, Faculty Affairs |
|
32 |
Rutgers University |
Center for Teaching Advancement & Assessment Research |
Teaching, Assessment, Instructional Ratings, Workshops, Technology |
|
33 |
Columbia University |
Center for Teaching and Learning |
For Faculty, For Graduate Students, Resources and Technology, About the CTL |
|
Predominantly postgraduate institutions |
34 |
A.T. Still University |
Teaching & Learning Center |
About Us, Events, Services, Programs, Resources, Research |
35 |
Adler University |
Center for Learning and Teaching |
CLT Services, Writing Support: Start Here, Brainfuse, Grammarly, Tutors & Workshops, Statistics Research Design, APA 7, Dissertations, Cover Letters Resumes and CVs |
|
36 |
Air Force Institute of Technology |
Teaching & Learning Center |
TLC Home, Programs, Services, Writing Lab, Support Team, MSOTL Forum, Connect With Us |
|
37 |
Claremont Colleges |
Center for Learning and Teaching |
Home, Our Mission, Services, Resources, Contact Us, Online Teaching & Learning Support |
|
38 |
Naval Postgraduate School |
Teaching and Learning Commons |
Home, Resources, Initiatives, About TLC, Contact Us |
|
39 |
Oregon Health & Science University |
Teaching and Learning Center |
Academic Technology, Faculty Development, Academic Support, Training Future Faculty |
|
40 |
University of California, San Francisco |
Teaching & Learning Center |
Classroom, Event Support, A/V, Video Services, Engineering & Design |
Note. Data collection occurred on August 17, 2022; as such, some of the naming conventions of the centers listed, their associated hyperlinks, and their home page link texts may have since changed.
