ONLINE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR UNIVERSITY TEACHING IN TURKEY: A PROPOSAL

The following article discusses the worldwide need for professional development in university teaching and the kinds of initiative that are being introduced in some countries. It examines the case for adopting such measures in the Turkish higher education system to ensure quality in all forms of teaching and learning, both on-campus and off-campus. It also considers the barriers to achieving systemic professional development for university teaching and suggests that the solution could lie in professional development via the internet/web and encouraging and supporting an online professional development community. With the exponential expansion of higher education, faculty are expected to teach larger classes and students from non-traditional backgrounds with a wide range of motivations and abilities. Governments, employers and students expect faculty to be more accountable for quality in teaching and learning and seek improvements in completion rates and grades. In some institutions, teaching portfolios are required for appointment and promotion. In some countries, universities are also being audited and then ranked, in part in according to their teaching quality. Universities are expected to provide different kinds of degree pathways to provide lifelong learning for adult learners. New understandings of human cognition and social-constructivist approaches to adult learning (Vygotsky,1978; Slavin, 1996) are leading to a greater emphasis on learners assuming greater responsibility for their own learning and case-based, collaborative learning in which learners engage in problem- solving and open dialogue (Hausfather,1996). In such learning contexts, faculty are expected to change from being 'instructors' to providing guidance for the learners, acting as 'resource specialists' and 'response specialists'. Faculty are also expected to embrace new forms of educational delivery such as open, distance, blended, and work-based learning and master the latest tools and methodologies of information and communications technology. And all of this is expected to occur without commensurate increases in funding and in most cases, adequate training provision. Murray (1999) suggests that to be effective, faculty development needs to have institutional support, be formalized, structured and goal-oriented, link faculty development and recognition and reward, promote a sense of ownership among faculty and evidence the fact that quality teaching is valued by the senior managers. Steinert (2000) suggests that professional development needs to relate to the institutional context and culture, be concerned with overcoming common problems, employ diverse strategies and incorporate the principles and theory of adult learning. The corporate world accepts that the better trained and qualified the employees, the more productive and efficient the organization and that those organizations that invest in maximizing their staffs' capabilities are the best positioned and the longest lasting in the marketplace. In general, such thinking is slow to come to the universities. With some notable exceptions, there is little in the way of systemic professional development to help faculty tackle the challenges outlined above. All too often, as Dearn, Fraser & Ryan (2003) observe in Australian universities, faculty are neither trained nor qualified to do what they mostly do — teach. Ironically, the very persons who accredit graduates to engage in professional practice have no formal training or accreditation for their own practice in this area.