Iryna Kobets, PhD, RCC, CCC
Scholar, Harvard Macy Institute (Harvard Medical School)
Teacher, Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav
Founder & CEO, ICEA International | GO2Goal Inc.
{Photo courtesy of Iryna Kobets}
A Reflection on Faculty Development and Educational Transition through the International Faculty Development Program
There are moments in education when change is no longer something we intentionally design, implement, or measure. Instead, it becomes something quieter — something we begin to notice.
This form of change does not arrive through policy or curriculum redesign. It emerges gradually, often unexpectedly, through shifts in perception. It reveals itself not in formal outcomes, but in how educators begin to speak about their classrooms, their students, and their own roles within the learning process.
Such a moment became visible during the international faculty development program “Higher Education 2030: Artificial Intelligence, Research, and Sustainable Development.”
The program brought together university educators from Ukraine and faculty from Thompson Rivers University, creating a shared space that extended beyond professional development. It became a space of encounter — between systems, experiences, and ways of thinking about education.
What made this experience particularly meaningful was the depth and diversity of expertise contributed by TRU faculty, including Dr. Wei Yan, Dr. Ajay Dhruv, Dr. Brenna Clarke Gray, Justin Kolman, Myrissa Krenzler, Dr. Jim Hu, Dr. Jean Dai, and Dr. Zeinab Esmaeili. Their perspectives shaped not only the content of the program, but the quality of dialogue that emerged within it.
In addition, the program was enriched by a guest lecture delivered by Dr. Oleksandr Romanko from University of Toronto, who explored the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) across both education and business contexts. His contribution extended the discussion beyond classroom applications, highlighting how AI is reshaping decision-making, professional environments, and expectations of future graduates.
This perspective added an important dimension to the program, connecting educational transformation with broader systemic change.
At the same time, the module “Active Learning in the Era of Change,” designed and delivered by the author, introduced participants to the framework of Authentic Active Learning (AAL) — a condition-based model of learning. Rather than presenting active learning as a collection of techniques, the module offered a way to understand learning as something that emerges when specific conditions are present: alignment, readiness, psychological safety, reflection, and meaningful engagement.
What emerged from this encounter was not a set of new tools or strategies.
It was something deeper: a gradual, yet unmistakable transformation in how educators understand learning itself.
When Change is Felt before It is Named
Across disciplines and institutions, participants began to describe a similar experience. They were already adapting their teaching in response to contemporary demands: Case-based discussions were being introduced; AI tools were being explored; traditional models of assessment were being questioned.
And yet, despite these changes, there remained a sense of incompleteness — a subtle recognition that the transformation underway was not fully captured by methodological adjustments alone.
One participant articulated this moment with striking clarity:
“AI is not just helping me prepare classes — it is pushing me toward more active learning.”
This statement marks an important threshold. It signals a shift from adoption to realization.
Educators were not simply incorporating new tools. They were beginning to ask a more fundamental question: What is learning supposed to look like in this new context?
AI as a Catalyst for Pedagogical Reflection
At the beginning of the program, AI appeared as the central theme — a technological development requiring adaptation. Conversations focused on practical concerns: how to design assignments in AI-supported environments, how to ensure academic integrity, and how to rethink assessment practices.
However, as discussions unfolded, the role of AI began to change.
It moved from being an object of focus to becoming a catalyst for deeper reflection. Questions about authorship led to questions about meaning. Concerns about misuse led to reconsiderations of purpose. The conversation gradually shifted from how to control learning to how to design it more meaningfully.
In this way, AI did not provide answers.
It created conditions for asking better questions.
From Content to Context: When Learning Becomes Real
As participants reflected on their teaching, a recurring theme began to emerge — the need for learning to feel real.
This was not framed as an abstract pedagogical preference, but as a practical necessity. Educators described a growing awareness that purely theoretical instruction no longer supports the kind of thinking students are expected to develop. Instead, students must engage with situations that reflect the complexity, ambiguity, and unpredictability of real-world contexts.
Learning, in this sense, is no longer confined to the transmission of knowledge. It becomes an active process of engagement, interpretation, and decision-making.
Importantly, this shift did not originate in theory. It emerged from practice — from the daily experience of teaching in conditions that demand relevance.
The Role of Community in Educational Transformation
Another defining feature of the program was the experience of learning in community.
Change did not occur in isolation. It unfolded through dialogue — through the exchange of perspectives, the sharing of uncertainties, and the recognition of common challenges. Participants listened to one another, compared approaches, and observed alternative ways of engaging students.
In this process, something essential became visible: transformation is not an individual achievement. It is a collective movement.
Through interaction, educators began to see their own practice differently. They gained not only new ideas, but a sense of direction — an understanding that change is not only possible, but already underway.
Reframing Active Learning
Within this evolving context, the module “Active Learning in the Era of Change” served as a moment of conceptual clarity.
It allowed participants to recognize that many of the changes they were already making were not isolated innovations, but part of a broader shift toward Authentic Active Learning (AAL).
Technology, ethics, assessment, and flexibility were no longer separate topics. They became interconnected elements of a single question: What conditions make learning possible? This reframing moved the discussion beyond methods and toward learning as a system.
As one participant reflected:
“Lecture is no longer enough. What matters is interaction.”
This statement reflects more than a preference.
It signals a transformation in how learning is understood.
The Educator as a Designer of Learning Conditions
As participants explored new tools and approaches, another important realization emerged: technology does not diminish the role of the educator. It redefines it.
Rather than serving as a source of knowledge, the educator becomes a designer — someone who creates the conditions in which learning can occur. These conditions include not only content, but also structure, interaction, flexibility, and psychological safety.
This shift requires intentionality. It demands that educators move beyond delivering information toward shaping experiences that support thinking, reflection, and application.
In this sense, teaching becomes less about instruction and more about design.
A Transition still in Progress
Looking across all reflections, a clear pattern emerges. Educators are already in transition.
They are experimenting with new approaches, questioning established practices, and adapting to changing conditions. Yet, alongside this activity, there is also a search — a search for coherence.
Participants are not seeking more tools or strategies. They are seeking understanding — a way to connect their experiences into a meaningful framework. This search suggests that the transformation of education is not only technical. It is conceptual.
The Deeper Value of Faculty Development
Faculty development programs are often evaluated based on the innovations they introduce. However, this perspective overlooks their deeper function.
Such programs create space — space to pause, to reflect, and to make sense of change. They allow educators to step outside the immediacy of their daily practice and engage in a process of collective meaning-making.
As demonstrated in this program, transformation does not occur through instruction alone. It emerges through dialogue, shared experience, and sustained reflection.
Acknowledgment
This program would not have been possible without the contribution of faculty from Thompson Rivers University — Dr. Wei Yan, Dr. Ajay Dhruv, Dr. Brenna Clarke Gray, Justin Kolman, Myrissa Krenzler, Dr. Jim Hu, Dr. Jean Dai, and Dr. Zeinab Esmaeili — whose expertise and openness shaped the depth of this collaborative experience.
We also extend our sincere appreciation to Dr. Oleksandr Romanko (University of Toronto) for his insightful lecture on AI in education and business, which enriched the program’s academic dialogue.
Finally, we thank all participating educators, whose engagement, reflection, and professional openness made this transformation visible.
A Final Reflection
Education is often described as something we deliver.
But what this experience revealed is something fundamentally different.
Learning does not begin with content.
It begins when conditions allow it to happen.
And perhaps the most important question for educators today is not:
What should we teach next?
But:
What needs to change for learning to become real?