Abstract
The results of this study inform a meaningful and necessary plan to train new occupational therapy faculty members as academicians and to ensure continuing development of experienced faculty for optimal performance and retention.
As the baby boomer population achieves retirement age, experts predict that there will be unprecedented levels of faculty vacancies (Hetrick et al., 2021; Holmes et al., 2016; McChesney & Bichsel, 2020). Because the job market prospect for health professionals continues to grow, this shortage in health care faculty is of considerable concern for occupational therapy educational programs. Faculty training and professional development offerings may play a large role in faculty recruitment, career sustainability in academia, and faculty retention (Hameed et al., 2018). Additionally, such initiatives may reignite a faculty member’s passion for teaching and improve skills required to successfully transfer knowledge to learners (Cook et al., 2011; Lancaster et al., 2014) while achieving the ultimate goal of preparing high-quality clinicians (Behar-Horenstein et al., 2012). The changing health care environment also demands evolution of teaching skills. As health care becomes more digitally and globally oriented through computer technology, teaching skills need to be kept up to date (Grainger et al., 2021).
New occupational therapy faculty members may be expert clinicians but may have no training related to teaching or the ability to transfer expert clinical knowledge to the classroom, especially in the domains of education, administration, research, written communication, professional academic skills, and leadership skills (American Occupational Therapy Association [AOTA], 2021; Baker et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2007; Rogers et al., 2022; Sparks-Keeney & Jirikowic, 2020; Steinert, 2019). Faculty attitudes toward the value of and need for professional development may affect participation in professional development activities (McLean et al., 2008). Aims of faculty training and development include socializing new faculty to the culture of the institution, preparing clinicians for teaching responsibilities, sustaining academic vitality, helping prepare graduates to meet the ever-changing health care needs of society, and upholding the professional accountability of teachers (Kitto et al., 2019; McLean et al., 2008).
A survey of 223 occupational therapy assistant educators revealed several areas that faculty found particularly challenging, including learning and using effective instructional techniques, identifying grading criteria and developing rubrics, and creating appropriate learning assessments (Sparks-Keeney & Jirikowic, 2020). Establishing competency in such areas is critically important; yet, institutions may not have a formalized development program in place. A comprehensive, defined list of competencies that all faculty members must possess does not exist; moreover, a wide variety of methods can be used for faculty development (Harris et al., 2007). Such methods may be used at the individual, departmental, institutional, regional, national, or international level.
Because of this variety, it is difficult to assign levels of effectiveness to specific development activities (Lancaster et al., 2014). Faculty development offerings may vary depending on financial budgets, development staff availability and expertise, availability of faculty for participation, and campus resources (Lancaster et al., 2014). In addition, training may be based on both the mission of the university and societal needs (Harris et al., 2007). Little conclusive research has been published on the attitude toward, level of participation in, and efficacy of formal faculty development initiatives.
The purpose of this study is to determine the type of training that occupational therapy educators receive in preparation for a teaching role, to evaluate the professional development activities in which these educators currently engage, and to identify the professional development topics that are most needed. The results of this study can be used to help design a standardized plan to train new occupational therapy faculty members who, in general, have been trained as clinicians but not necessarily as academicians.
Method
Study Design
In this study, we used a nonexperimental, descriptive survey design. Participants were provided with information regarding the purpose of the study, benefits and risks of participation, confidentiality of data, and the option to consent to participation through opening the electronic survey link. The study was approved by the institutional review board of Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions.
Participants
Faculty members at occupational therapy assistant and occupational therapist educational programs were invited to participate through an email invitation (N = 2,077). Faculty from both entry-level and postprofessional programs were included. Additionally, faculty of all ranks, both tenured and nontenured, and of all employment classifications (i.e., full time, part time, adjunct) received the survey invitation.
Outcome Measure
A pilot survey was developed by the researchers that included questions related to respondents’ job classification and setting, institutional requirements and support for faculty development, training activities in which the respondents participated, comfort levels with select teaching responsibilities, and topics of interest for additional professional development. The pilot survey with a request for feedback was distributed to 10 members of the target population to establish face validity of the survey; eight responses were received. Results of the pilot survey showed that the survey took less than 15 min to complete, instructions and questions were clear, and response options were clear and easy to understand. The researchers received and adopted recommendations to include additional response options to existing questions and to add suggested questions.
The survey included checklists for questions related to work setting, faculty role and employment status, faculty rank and degree, institutional teaching and instructional design training requirements and support, types of training available within the institution, training activities in which the respondent has participated, and topics in which respondents would like more training. A Likert scale (with options of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly agree, not applicable, and comments) was used to rank respondents’ comfort level with and access to various components of teaching and instructional design.
The survey was created and distributed electronically through the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software, which provides advanced de-identification options that can be used when exporting data (Patridge & Bardyn, 2018). These options provide greater security and data protection when a user is exporting sensitive data out of REDCap. The data were aggregated without individual results and personal identifiers when reported.
Procedures
The survey was built and housed in the REDCap online survey platform. A link to the survey was included within an invitation letter that outlined the survey purpose, risks, benefits, privacy practices, and consent to participate. The invitation letter and survey link were distributed to 2,077 occupational therapy and occupational therapy assistant educators throughout the United States. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and participants received no benefits or rewards aside from the opportunity to contribute to knowledge that may play a role in faculty recruitment, career sustainability in academia, and faculty retention. Survey invitations were sent via email. A reminder email was sent 2 wk later, and the survey was closed after a total of 30 days.
Results
From the REDCap survey, 449 completed responses were received (22% response rate). Results were analyzed with descriptive statistics and were organized to allow reporting of (1) respondent and program demographics; (2) institutional training requirements for teaching, types of training offered, and funding offered; (3) faculty participation in training; (4) perceptions of readiness and confidence; and (5) reported training needs. These results can be used to examine the issue of faculty preparation to teach from the faculty perspective at multiple levels and from a variety of institutions for the overall purpose of guiding further professional development opportunities.
Respondent Demographic Characteristics
The majority of respondents were full-time faculty (89%, n = 400) on a teaching track (91%, n = 410). Of the respondents, 53% (n = 240) had more than 5 yr of experience primarily in a teaching role, 38% (n = 170) had less than 5 yr of experience in a teaching role, and 9% (n = 39) were positioned primarily as a researcher. Slightly more respondents reported status as nontenure track (57%, n = 257) versus tenure track (40%, n = 181). The most common highest degree reported was relatively evenly split among Doctor of Philosophy (32%, n = 143), Occupational Therapy Doctorate or Doctor of Occupational Therapy (30%, n = 133), and Master of Science degree (25%, n = 113). Other degrees reported included Doctor of Education (6%, n = 25), bachelor (3%, n = 12), Doctor of Science (2%, n = 7), associate (0.2%, n = 1), and “other” (including Doctor of Health Administration, Doctor of Health Science, Doctor of Physical Therapy, and Juris Doctor, collectively at 3%, n = 15).
Program Demographic Characteristics
The majority of respondents reported primarily teaching in a master’s-level occupational therapy program (71%, n = 317). Other degrees included occupational therapy assistant associate degree (12%, n = 54), entry-level occupational therapy doctorate (12%, n = 55), and postprofessional occupational therapy doctorate (5%, n = 23). The majority of programs were taught onsite (64%, n = 289) or mostly onsite (26%, n = 117), whereas the remaining programs were structured mostly online (6%, n = 25) or completely online (4%, n = 17).
Training Requirements for Teaching
Of the respondents, fewer than 17% (n = 74) stated that training was required at their institution, and 81% (n = 364) reported that training for teaching is not required at their institution. Of those 364 respondents, 75% (n = 273) reported that even though training was not required, it was encouraged. Two percent (n = 11) reported being unsure whether training was required.
Types of Training and Funding Offered
A variety of training opportunities were reported to be available among the institutions represented. The most common trainings available included informal meetings (72%, n = 325) and informal mentorship (70%, n = 313), followed by online training modules (53%, n = 240) and website resources (53%, n = 238). Formal mentorship and interactive webinars were reported as the least available trainings (35%, n = 155; 33%, n = 150, respectively). Although formal training opportunities were reported at less than half of the institutions represented (49%, n = 218), 70% of respondents (n = 314) reported that their institution provided financial support for training related to teaching and learning (Figure 1).
Training activities: types of training activities available at the faculty institution versus types of training in which faculty participate.
Faculty Participation in Trainings
Not surprisingly, the types of trainings in which faculty participated were related to the types of trainings offered, as noted earlier. Specifically, the most common trainings in which respondents reported participation included informal meetings (82%, n = 370) and informal mentorship (66%, n = 295), followed by website resources (59%, n = 264), continuing education courses offered outside of their institution (54%, n = 242), formal training courses totaling less than 4 hr per year (53%, n = 236), and online training modules (52%, n = 232). Likewise, formal mentorship and interactive webinars were reported as the least common for faculty participation (27%, n = 119; 29%, n = 129, respectively; see Figure 1).
Perceptions of Teaching Readiness and Confidence
Only 31% of respondents (n = 141) reported feeling adequately prepared to be an educator during their first year of teaching. The majority of respondents reported feeling comfortable using a variety of educational technologies in the classroom (74%, n = 332) and writing course objectives (79%, n = 353). More than half of respondents reported feeling knowledgeable regarding educational theory (66%, n = 296) and feeling comfortable with the flipped classroom approach (61%, n = 273; Table 1).
Faculty Perceptions of Teaching Readiness and Confidence (N = 449)
Reported Training Needs
More than half of respondents requested additional training in the following topics: teaching methods and techniques (53%, n = 238); how to create dynamic lecture presentations (53%, n = 236); formative assessment, such as how to write test questions (53%, n = 237); and formative assessment, such as designing assignments (51%, n = 228). Online teaching methods and educational theory were also highly requested topics (47%, n = 209; 40%, n = 179, respectively). Other topics of interest included educational technologies (32%, n = 143); teaching portfolios (30%, n = 133); Bloom’s taxonomy (23%, n = 105); and course setup, including syllabus, objectives, and assignments (22%, n = 97; Figure 2).
Topics in which faculty would like to gain more knowledge.
Discussion
The ability to understand and implement educational theory and instructional design principles is a critical component in the process of educating and motivating effective future clinicians. However, similar to other faculty teaching in higher education, occupational therapy educators often enter teaching with highly specialized clinical training and minimal educator training (Sparks-Keeney & Jirikowic, 2020). The purpose of this project was to complete a needs assessment to (1) identify the gaps in professional development for occupational therapy and occupational therapy assistant educators and (2) prioritize next steps for future training activities.
Most responses came from full-time faculty on a teaching track. We next discuss the results from this survey using a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis in an effort to facilitate strategic planning among individual institutions and at the national level. A SWOT analysis is a common tool that is used to examine internal and external factors that may facilitate or inhibit success; it uses findings to develop a strategic plan for productively moving forward. Data from this study were viewed and organized through the perspective of personal strengths and weaknesses alongside institutional or external opportunities and threats in a manner that optimizes goal setting and strategic planning initiatives.
Strengths
Training related to teaching and instructional design is required or encouraged at more than two-thirds of educational institutions. Most faculty reported that some type of training was available at their institution and that their institution provided financial support for training related to teaching and learning. Informal meetings and informal mentorship were both offered and used by the majority of faculty. Most faculty reported feeling comfortable using a variety of educational technologies in the classroom and writing course objectives.
Weaknesses
Only one-third of faculty reported feeling adequately prepared to be an educator during their first year of teaching. Faculty training and mentorship in teaching and learning tended to be more informal. Only one-third of faculty reported participating in formal mentorship or having opportunities to participate in formal mentorship. Moreover, only half of faculty reported participating in formal training courses, continuing education, or online training modules. Further exploration into the reasons why faculty do not participate in trainings (e.g., lack of time, workload demands, funding, lack of trainings available, poor internal support and encouragement) is needed. Faculty knowledge and use of educational theory and the flipped classroom approach (or other nontraditional classroom approaches) can also be improved, as reported by approximately half of faculty.
Opportunities
A potential area for growth in formal mentorship exists but should be carefully and intentionally planned to cultivate worthwhile relationships and a sustainable mentoring program. The literature suggests that (1) junior faculty desire formal structured mentorship that features clear expectations and mentor accessibility, (2) formal mentorship can be unsuccessful if a relationship does not develop, and (3) formal mentorship works best when blended with informal mentorship (Bowman et al., 2018). Formal mentorship programs for occupational therapy educators should be supported at the institutional level and at the national level. AOTA offers monthly facilitated group mentoring sessions via the Academic Leadership Institute and paired mentor–mentee inquiry communities via the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Institute and Mentoring Program.
Advances in technology lend opportunities for growth in online professional development related to teaching and learning, such as interactive webinars (e.g., AOTA Academic Education Special Interest Section [AESIS], TherapyEd, and International Clinical Educators [ICE]), discussion boards (e.g., AOTA CommunOT Academic Education Forum), global collaborations across institutions, and online journal or book clubs related to teaching and learning. After publication of the Occupational Therapy Curriculum Design Framework (AOTA, 2021), AOTA began offering online curriculum design workshops to provide new and experienced faculty with resources to create a curriculum that (1) aligns with the profession, sponsoring institution, accreditation, best teaching practices, and current clinical practice; (2) addresses the needs of students and society; and (3) maximizes community collaboration. At the institution level, online training for teaching and learning could be considered for inclusion with other annual required training courses.
On the basis of the most common requests from respondents, desirable content areas for training opportunities include teaching methods and techniques; how to create dynamic lecture presentations; and formative assessment, such as how to write test questions and design assignments. Next, online teaching methods and educational theory were also requested by just less than half of the respondents. The need for training in online teaching skills may need to be revisited because the coronavirus pandemic has shifted the frequency of online and hybrid learning. Finally, educational technologies, teaching portfolios, Bloom’s taxonomy, and course setup—including syllabus, objectives, and assignments—were requested by one-fourth to one-third of respondents.
Threats
The potential for a shortage of faculty in the future may make it more difficult for faculty to find time and mentors for training related to teaching and learning. Threats to institutional funding could also lead to less available funding for faculty training.
Limitations
Several considerations should be noted before attempting to generalize the results of this study. First, the majority of respondents taught onsite or mostly onsite and in a master’s-level occupational therapy program. Further research may be needed to confirm the needs of online teaching faculty and faculty teaching in occupational therapy assistant and doctoral-level programs. Second, faculty who are primarily researchers were not well represented in this study. Third, the purpose of this study was to identify areas of training that would benefit all faculty, but it may be useful for a future study focused on the needs of junior faculty. Fourth, this study focused on faculty perceptions about their training and training needs. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of different training methods, such as in-person courses versus online training modules and interactive webinars. Finally, the pool of respondents was widespread and diverse across factors including but not limited to institutional type, level of educational program, and years of faculty experience. Research that targets more specific populations or settings may provide clarity related to the limitations of this study.
Implications for Occupational Therapy Education
A commendable amount of work has been done to improve attention to the significance of teaching principles and practices within occupational therapy education, as evidenced by the strengths listed earlier. In fact, the 2018 Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education (ACOTE) standards reflect the value that is now placed on preparation for working in an academic setting in occupational therapy, as evidenced by the addition of a new standard (B.6.6) that requires “understanding . . . the principles of instructional design and teaching and learning” (ACOTE, 2018, p. 37). However, there is still much room for improvement.
The study findings reveal the following implications for occupational therapy educational institutions and supportive national associations: ▪ A large majority of faculty do not feel prepared to teach during their first year of teaching. Support is needed. ▪ Faculty at all levels want professional development training in the areas of teaching and learning techniques, including lecture presentations and formative assessment.
In response to the outcomes from this study, the following recommendations are made directly to occupational therapy and occupational therapy assistant faculty: ▪ Faculty must continue to investigate their own institution’s culture with respect to teaching and learning and advocate for faculty professional development training and support services. ▪ Faculty should seek opportunities to learn from other experienced faculty, both within occupational therapy and outside of the profession. Mentoring (formal or informal), peer evaluations, peer observations, journal or book clubs, and learning labs or communities of practice may be helpful. ▪ For increased accountability, faculty should write targeted goals related to development in teaching and learning as part of their overall annual professional development plan and discuss those goals with a mentor or supervisor. ▪ Faculty should explore the many resources that exist to facilitate growth in teaching and learning (see the Appendix).
Suggested Resource List for Faculty Development
Note. AOTA = American Occupational Therapy Association.
Written by an occupational therapist.
Conclusion
Outcomes from this report reveal that changes have occurred in a positive direction for occupational therapy faculty, as most institutions encouraged educator training and offered some type of educator training and informal mentorship. However, more progress is needed, particularly for junior faculty in their first year of teaching. Training in teaching methods and techniques, such as creating effective lecture presentations and formative assessments, is beneficial and requested by faculty at all levels. In future studies, researchers should investigate the impact of comprehensive training in teaching and learning on student learning outcomes and faculty recruitment and retention.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank the occupational therapy faculty who participated in the survey. We also acknowledge the American Occupational Therapy Association’s Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SOTL) Program for its role in fostering this project through the SOTL Institute and Mentoring Program. This project was completed under the mentorship of Steve Taff, PhD, OTR/L, FNAP, FAOTA. Portions of this report were presented at the American Occupational Therapy Association Education Summit in October 2018.