As someone deeply engaged in supporting post-secondary instructors with online course design, I found the article, A sociocultural approach to communication instruction: How insights from communication teaching practices can inform faculty development programs by Hora et al. (2021) both relevant and insightful for both my professional practice and research. Hora et al. (2021) argued that communication instruction in higher education should be reframed through a sociocultural lens to teaching and learning, which led me to reconsider how we conceptualize “skills” in faculty development/instructor professional development (PD) and how often we overlook the embedded, contextual, and disciplinary nature of those skills in my institution.
Hora et al. (2021) conducted a mixed-methods study, involving interviews, classroom observations, and surveys, which reveals that instructors’ teaching decisions are shaped by personal experiences, institutional contexts, and perceived student needs. They emphasized that effective communication instruction should be limited to public speaking tips but should engage students in practicing real-world, discipline-specific genres through interactive methods like classroom debates, role-plays and simulations (Hora et al., 2021). This idea pushed me to think more deeply about how I support instructors in designing scaffolded, meaningful interaction in online courses. It’s not enough to just add a discussion board or assign a group project. We need to help instructors design these activities with intention, drawing on the norms and purposes of their specific disciplines and student populations. As an instructional designer, I see the need to move beyond “best practice” checklists and toward co-creating learning experiences that are authentic, relevant, and learner-centered.
What stood out most was the framing of communication as a “cultural event… laden with contextual motivations, purposes, audiences and strategies” (p. 749). This clarified why so many PD programs fall short; they treat teaching as content delivery rather than guided participation in a learning culture. I see the same issue in online environments, where teaching presence, like communication, is not a checklist but “a lived, evolving practice.” Without it, student engagement and cognitive development suffer, as noted by Wang and Stein (2021).
Moreover, Hora et al. (2021) critique “technocratic, top-down professional development approaches” that fail to equip instructors with “meaningful pedagogical tools” or address “authentic problems of practice” (p. 750), which reflect on what I often observe across institutions, where instructors are often treated as passive recipients of training, expected to apply generic strategies without support or context. Reading this article reinforced my thoughts that professional learning must be situated, reflective, and co-constructed with instructors. Most importantly, it should be ongoing and continuing. Their emphasis on grounding PD in real teaching contexts aligns closely with my research interests on continuing professional development (CPD) training series responsive to instructors’ real-world challenges.
To sum up, this reading supports the direction of my doctoral research while encouraging me to refine its scope. It reminded me that meaningful CPD is not just about improving teaching techniques, it’s more about supporting faculty as learners. To do that well, we must design PD that models the very values we ask instructors to apply: responsiveness, reflection, collaboration, and care. By bridging research with the real-world practice of teaching, we can create PD experiences that are impactful and transformative.
References
Hora, M. T., Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2021). A sociocultural approach to communication instruction: How insights from communication teaching practices can inform faculty development programs. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 30(4–5), 747–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2021.1936533
Wang, Y., & Stein, D. (2021). Effects of online teaching presence on students’ cognitive conflict and engagement. Distance Education, 42(4), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2021.1987837
Leave a Reply