Description: This quantitative study used a factorial design and survey research to examine the influence of pedagogical training on full-time faculty (n = 2193) in the Technical College System of Georgia, and how such preparation might impact student learning outcomes in conventional and online courses. The tool for data collection was a web-survey instrument, modified with permission from the Faculty Survey on Teaching, Learning and Assessment" (Matney, 2001), and predicated upon responses to a five-point Likert scale. Pilot Study - It was conducted to determine if flaws existed in the construction and delivery of the survey instrument, recording of data and subsequent analyses, and to provide an opportunity for adjustments that might be needed to ensure that the instrument was presented optimally and the information correctly recorded. A sample (N = 200) was selected from the population of full-time faculty in Georgia's Technical College system using a random number query. Those participants were not used subsequently. Data Collection - A letter was sent by e-mail to all full-time faculty persons (N = 2000) in the Technical College System of Georgia requesting their participation in a survey on "Faculty Teaching Practices". The e-mail included a hyperlink to the Web questionnaire and information indicating submission of the survey implied consent, plus verification the proposed study had appropriate IRB approvals. A follow-up e-mail letter was sent two-weeks after the initial mailing to encourage more responses. It was not necessary to send a third notice because 356 surveys were returned and 340 were complete. That was more than the 238 usable survey sample size required to achieve a 95% confidence level. The data were downloaded into Microsoft Excel and then loaded into SPSS for detailed analysis. Goal - Re-emphasize the importance of scholarly pursuits in community colleges and highlight the importance of disciplinary backgrounds on instructional and assessment practices. Target Audience - All. Institutional Level - Program & Institution Data Analysis - The level of pedagogical training/education (no professional training, faculty-development training, college credit courses in pedagogy, or a degree in education) and departmental affiliation served as the independent variables. Departmental affiliations were grouped into: English and Social Sciences (including Speech, Humanities, Psychology, and Sociology), Science and Mathematics, Business and Computer Sciences, Allied Health and Nursing, Vocational/Industrial and Technical, and Adult Literacy/Adult Basic Education. Innovation in teaching was determined by three dependent variables: participation in the scholarship of teaching and learning, introduction of new teaching techniques, and active learning practices. One dependent variable, participation in the scholarship of teaching and learning, contained items that allowed respective instructors to rate themselves on "how often they performed research in teaching, coached other faculty in their teaching, and made evaluations and recommendations regarding teaching practice effectiveness" (Matney, 2001, p. 81). The second dependent variable, introduction of new teaching techniques, was assessed by responses to two questions: How frequently do you introduce new or experimental teaching strategies, and in how many of your courses do you try new teaching practices. Faculty members self-ratings on the frequency of incorporating specific active-learning techniques (i.e., small group work, group projects, in-class or online collaborative presentations, and student-led discussions and activities was the third dependent variable. Interpretation of the descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA allowed for claiming there were differences among discipline groups. To explore the possibility of an interaction between the two independent variables (department affiliation and pedagogical training) a two-factor ANOVA was used because of the nature of the data and how they were measured (the independent variables were categorical, and the dependent variables were continuous) (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2000). Findings: Participation in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning was limited primarily to instructors improving their own teaching methods through informal interactions with colleagues. There was minimal activity in formal or structured methods such as direct research, formal evaluation of peers, or assumption of leadership promoting teaching and learning strategies. Regrettably, as teaching and learning is claimed to be the hallmark of technical colleges it would be logical to expect resources (human, financial, and material) to be devoted to its promotion. Instead, it appeared that instructors vested in improving their teaching and student learning just sought out colleagues for advice and assistance. Such reluctance to promote the scholarship of teaching and learning was lamented by Prager (2003) who contended that scholarly pursuits at community colleges were valid and ignoring efforts for improving instructional practices and enhancing student learning has been a blatant disservice to the community college clientele. Postareff's et al. (2007) and Gibbs and Coffee's (2004) reported that training opportunities of significant durations produced a change among instructors toward more student-focused teaching methods, and the most favorable manner for achieving such changes was completing at least one or more college courses in active learning pedagogy. Those findings were supported by this research. The influence of pedagogical training in active learning practices also conformed to the contextual filters model (Stark & Lattuca, 1997), and when the course planning component of that model was examined it was determined that it coincided with the claim of there being significant difference among departments in the use of student-centered assessment techniques. Data from the current study was interpreted to mean the faculty was influenced by their discipline and certainly by their level of pedagogical training when they made choices about the use of active learning assessment and activities related to the scholarship of teaching and learning. It was determined that: 1)Instructional personnel departmental affiliation had a statistically significant impact on instructors' decisions to use active-learning assessment and to participate in the scholarship of teaching and learning activities. 2)That a significant difference existed among instructors use of active-learning techniques and assessments as a consequence of their levels of pedagogical training and their participation in activities related to the scholarship of teaching and learning. The findings have implications for providing formal and informal faculty-development programs, and such learning experiences need to be of a defined duration. 3)The nature of student outcomes appeared related to the manner by which instructors presented information and subsequently assessed their learning.
