A Guide to Faculty Development

Kay J. Gillespie, Douglas L. Robertson, Kay J. Gillespie, Douglas L. Robertson

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780470405574
• eBook ISBN: 9780470600061
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Since the first edition of A Guide to Faculty Development was published in 2002, the dynamic field of educational and faculty development has undergone many changes. Prepared under the auspices of the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD), this thoroughly revised, updated, and expanded edition offers a fundamental resource for faculty developers, as well as for faculty and administrators interested in promoting and sustaining faculty development within their institutions. This essential book offers an introduction to the topic, includes twenty-three chapters by leading experts in the field, and provides the most relevant information on a range of faculty development topics including establishing and sustaining a faculty development program; the key issues of assessment, diversity, and technology; and faculty development across institutional types, career stages, and organizations.

"This volume contains the gallant story of the emergence of a movement to sustain the vitality of college and university faculty in difficult times. This practical guide draws on the best minds shaping the field, the most productive experience, and elicits the imagination required to reenvision a dynamic future for learning societies in a global context."
— R. Eugene Rice, senior scholar, Association of American Colleges and Universities

"Across the country, people in higher education are thinking about how to prepare our graduates for a rapidly changing world while supporting our faculty colleagues who grew up in a very different world. Faculty members, academic administrators, and policymakers alike will learn a great deal from this volume about how to put together a successful faculty development program and create a supportive environment for learning in challenging times."
— Judith A. Ramaley, president, Winona State University

"This is the book on faculty development in higher education. Everyone involved in faculty development—including provosts, deans, department chairs, faculty, and teaching center staff—will learn from the extensive research and the practical wisdom in the Guide."
— Peter Felten, president, The POD Network (2010–2011), and director, Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning, Elon University

PART ONE

ESTABLISHING AND SUSTAINING A FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This part of the book consists of eight chapters that provide an introduction to the field, its history, literature, and key themes; an identification of basic issues, decisions, and practicalities in establishing and sustaining successful educational development programs; and a discussion of essential knowledge and skills that one needs in order to excel as an educational developer.

1

OVERVIEW OF FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

HISTORY AND CHOICES

Mathew L. Ouellett

MY PURPOSE IN THIS CHAPTER is to set the stage broadly for the chapters that follow; to call readers’ attention to some of the literature, both body of practice and research based, upon which much of this book is built; and to suggest key questions that await further pursuit as we continue to expand and refine the work of faculty development. For both seasoned and beginning practitioners, the good news is that during the past several decades our colleagues have steadily contributed to a rich body of knowledge that serves to illuminate why we pursue our work in the ways we do, how we do what we do, and what the principles and values are that undergird what we do.

A Note on Language and Scope

In the Preface of this volume, the volume editors address common confusion that stems from our currently fuzzy and interchangeable use of terms, including educational development, faculty development, and professional development. As the editors point out, our community is in the process of building consensus on what words best describe our work, but we are not there yet. Therefore, readers of this volume will see the field named by a number of terms. I invite readers to join this ongoing conversation.

In order to provide a broad foundation for the topics covered in depth by specific chapters, my goal here is twofold: to summarize the historical context and to introduce topics and questions addressed in later chapters of this volume. The test is to achieve these two goals succinctly and without “stealing the thunder” or unnecessarily repeating the efforts of my colleagues. Their chapters provide the best in research, practice, and innovative approaches and offer an in-depth exploration of the implications of these issues from the perspective of educational developers.

A Brief History of Faculty Development

Colleges and universities in the United States have a long history of commitment to the development and success of faculty members related to their disciplinary expertise and research. Lewis (1996) pointed out that the sabbatical leave instituted at Harvard University in 1810 is probably the oldest form of faculty development. The primary goal of this early program was to support faculty members’ further development as scholars within their fields. Well into the 1960s, this focus on increasing research expertise was the standard of support in colleges and universities.

Faculty development, as we understand it today, began to emerge in U.S. higher education in the social and economic turbulence of the late 1950s and 1960s (Bergquist, 1992; Rice, 2007; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006). With the advent of the student rights movement across higher education in the United States, students began to demand more control over what they studied (for example, the emergence of ethnic studies programs) and to assert the right to give teachers feedback on what they found to be boring and irrelevant courses (Gaff & Simpson, 1994). Additionally, students began to demand a role in the determination of the content of the curriculum, expecting that courses would be, in their perceptions, more relevant to their experiences, concerns, and aspirations.

The reimagination of faculty life in the 1960s and 1970s encompassed the broadening of what should constitute the central work of faculty. This was the recognition that success for faculty members had been defined almost exclusively by research and publication success. The expansion to include a more holistic focus on, and concomitant rewards for, excellence in teaching and service was a dramatic departure from what had been a generally accepted standard. Faculty members increasingly advocated that institutional and career rewards, particularly tenure and promotion standards, should reflect a broad understanding of the nature of their work. These shifting perspectives on the roles and rewards for faculty members in higher education intertwined with two concurrent important social movements: the human potential and the student rights movements (Bergquist, 1992; Gaff & Simpson, 1994; Lewis, 1996, Rice, 2007). This era launched a reevaluation of the traditional focus on the role of researcher and introduced a reappraisal of the value of and rewards for faculty members who focused on excellence in teaching. This dialogue continues on college and university campuses and within professional associations as well.

Stages of Faculty Development Work

A number of authors have suggested models for understanding the stages in the evolution of the research and practices in faculty development during the past several decades (Rice, 2007; Sorcinelli et al., 2006; Tiberius, 2001). In Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning from the Past, Understanding the Present, Sorcinelli et al. (2006) categorized the evolution of faculty development into four past ages (scholar, teacher, developer, and learner) and one new one (the age of the networker).

In their conceptualization, Sorcinelli et al. described the first stage (roughly the mid-1950s into the early 1960s) as the Age of the Scholar, indicating that during this time faculty development efforts intended to improve scholarly competence. In the 1950s and early 1960s, few institutions had formal programs addressing teaching improvement. The focus of support was on the development of scholarly expertise as indicated by research success and publication rates. Heiss (1970) noted that the pervasive norms of the time honored the development of research skills through “rigorous exposure to theory and practice” (p. 229) but held that teaching skills came “naturally” or automatically as one’s scholarship increased. Not surprisingly, researchers at the time noted that few doctoral programs included any formal pedagogical training (Nowlis, Clark, & Rock, 1968). In practical terms, faculty members understood that the pathway to success was based upon research and publication records.

The second stage, the Age of the Teacher, spanned the mid-1960s through the 1970s and witnessed an extension to include faculty, instructional, and organizational components of the improvement of teaching effectiveness. This period saw increased numbers of faculty members becoming dissatisfied with the narrowing of resources and sole focus on research as the definitive benchmark of faculty accomplishment. Recognizing the changing landscape, individuals and foundations began to argue for a broadening of the definition of scholarship and an exploration of other venues for faculty fulfillment and vitality (Astin, Comstock, Epperson, Greeley, Katz, & Kaufman, 1974; Rice, 2007). At this same time, research institutions began to respond to these changing demands by establishing faculty development opportunities (Eble & McKeachie, 1985). Melnik and Sheehan (1976) described three key forms of “teaching improvement programs” that began to emerge at this time as “one-shot” programs, expert centers, and financial incentive programs. The one-time programs included workshops, colloquia, and other opportunities of relatively brief duration. Examples of the “expert center” include the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching established at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1962 and the Clinic to Improve Teaching at the University of Massachusetts Amherst established in 1972 (Melnik & Sheehan, 1976; Tiberius, 2001). Such centers offered sustained teaching improvement services and advice often delivered by faculty colleagues who had been granted release time. The financial incentive programs were small grants for individual faculty members to develop and implement teaching improvement projects. During this period, a group of faculty members and higher education scholars founded the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD) in 1974, which was a pivotal event in the evolution of what we now call faculty or educational development.

Sorcinelli et al. (2006) then defined the 1980s as the Age of the Developer. This period saw a number of faculty development units emerge formally on campuses and a greater institutionalization of the role of faculty developers (Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Erickson, 1986; Sorcinelli et al., 2006). Initiatives on changing the state of undergraduate education from private foundations (for example, the Bush, Ford, and Lilly Foundations) helped provide the resources and motivation for innovation and experimentation with new approaches to teaching and faculty development (Sorcinelli et al., 2006).

The 1990s was the Age of the Learner. In a dramatic paradigm shift, the focus of teaching and instructional development moved from what had been a singular focus on the development of the pedagogical expertise and platform skills of teachers (the “sage on the stage”) to include a focus on student learning (teachers as the “guide on the side”). This shift caused a surge of interest in student-centered pedagogical methods such as active and collaborative approaches and problem and inquiry-based learning strategies that brought students directly into the teaching and learning equation (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Sorcinelli et al., 2006). This decade also saw a profusion of new, more complex options and resources for initiatives in faculty, instructional, and organizational development. The relatively fast evolution of faculty support programs—from periodic sabbatical leaves to extend one’s disciplinary expertise to comprehensive institution-wide programs that address faculty needs for growth and development across career stages and roles—is perhaps the greatest testament to the resonance and value of a more systemic approach to educational development.

Finally, Sorcinelli et al. (2006) proposed that we have now entered a new stage, the Age of the Networker. In this age, faculty developers will be called upon to “preserve, clarify, and enhance the purposes of faculty development, and to network with faculty and institutional leaders to respond to institutional problems and propose constructive solutions as we meet the challenges of the new century . . .” (p. 28).

Data gathered by Sorcinelli et al. (2006) indicate a rapidly growing constellation of individuals responsible for education development activities on campuses. The majority of survey respondents identified their primary roles as administrative, and they were relatively new to the field (that is, ten or fewer years); but more than three-fifths of respondents indicated they held faculty appointments. Additionally, some centers may now have staff positions, especially in centers located within larger institutional settings. Thus, we now have a pipeline of practitioners who may not have followed traditional faculty career pathways but bring specific expertise, such as instructional technology, to educational development. “As a group they [faculty developers] tend to be relatively new to the field with only one-quarter reporting that they have been in faculty development for a decade or more” (p. 36). This surge has created great interest in strengthening the dialogue between seasoned faculty development practitioners and relative newcomers, with the idea that there is much to be learned from each other. Not surprisingly, our articulation of what we do has evolved, too.

Building a Common Lexicon

Early on, Francis (1975) defined faculty development as a primarily classroom-based, individualized endeavor: a “process which seeks to modify the attitudes, skills, and behavior of faculty members toward greater competence and effectiveness in meeting student needs, their own needs, and the needs of the institution” (p. 720). Nearly twenty years later, Lewis (1996) noted that the term faculty development had evolved, as had the field, into a more expansive term meant to encompass three key areas of effort: personal development (self-reflection, vitality, and growth), instructional development (course and student-based initiatives), and organizational development (program, departmental, and institution-wide efforts). Diamond (2002) pointed out that these approaches are not mutually exclusive, but that, in combination, they allow for a tailoring of programs and resources best suited to the questions and goals at hand.

Diamond (2002) offered a further analysis of roles by presenting them as interdependent domains of faculty, instructional, organizational, and professional development. In his perspective, these roles parse out as follows. Faculty development focuses on the improvement of the individual instructor’s teaching skills; instructional development on students’ learning by improving the course and curriculum experience; and organizational development on the interrelationship and effectiveness of units within the institution; finally, educational development refers to the overall interaction resulting from the prior three efforts (Diamond, 1988, 2002).

Faculty development, professional development, organizational development, and the scholarship of teaching and learning interchangeably refer to aspects of the wide array of duties taken on by faculty developers. In international contexts, the more encompassing term educational development is used to cover the related initiatives for academic development, staff development, and quality enhancement. Recently, Felten, Kalish, Pingree, and Plank (2007) have argued for the adoption of the term educational development as the most inclusive term to describe “a profession dedicated to helping colleges and universities function effectively as teaching and learning communities” (p. 93). These several terms, and the accompanying confusion about when and how to use them accurately, are indicative of the fast-paced, international growth of the field and the complexity of competing demands arising from these often overlapping functions (Gosling, Sorcinelli, & Chism, 2008).

Today, the demands placed upon faculty members and the complexity of their roles and responsibilities continue to evolve at an astonishing pace. Consequently, our understanding of what constitutes “faculty development” and our language to articulate these changes in perspective will continue to evolve to reflect new conceptualizations.

Expanding the Horizon of Faculty Development

Changes in higher education and in the expectations of faculty members, including paradigm shifts in our approaches to teaching and learning and emergent research on the stages of faculty life, contribute significantly to the scope and breadth of faculty development. In their comprehensive research study, Sorcinelli et al. (2006) polled faculty developers to discern the three top challenges they saw facing the faculty and higher education institutions. As one would expect, respondents reported a range of priorities, but five emerged across institution type and size as central. These five concerns were

1. Balancing increasingly complex and demanding faculty roles

2. Assessment of teaching and student learning (especially in the context of increasingly diverse students)

3. The impact of technology

4. Addressing the needs of part-time faculty

5. The demands of interdisciplinary leadership development for chairs and institutions (pp. 104-105)

Response to the study to date indicates that these challenges resonate internationally as well (Gosling, Sorcinelli, & Chism, 2008).

Chism (2006) indicated that there is utility in approaching the work of educational development from multiple perspectives. She explained that one benefit of such an approach is that it prompts us to identify the strategies, theoretical perspectives, and consultation practices best suited for the challenge at hand. Inarguably, there is reason to respond to the priorities and unique needs of one’s institution. However, as faculty developers, we often have an institution-wide platform from which to work; and this perspective offers an opportunity to introduce new ideas, models, and practices that influence the deve...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• PREFACE
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS
• PART ONE - ESTABLISHING AND SUSTAINING A FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
• PART TWO - KEY PRIORITIES IN FACULTY DEVELOPMENT: ASSESSMENT, DIVERSITY, AND TECHNOLOGY
• PART THREE - FACULTY DEVELOPMENT ACROSS INSTITUTIONAL TYPES, CAREER STAGES, ...
• AFTERWORD
• EPILOGUE
• NAME INDEX
• SUBJECT INDEX