Home / Submissions / Aims / Contributors
A careful look at almost all of the “best practice”
community colleges will reveal that “best practice” delivery of its retention
and attainment of credential success has been strongly supported by careful and
well thought out professional development for faculty focusing on delivery and
learner engaging pedagogies.
For NEXUS/SuccessNow to
successfully support freshmen success, professional development on educational
delivery and learner engaging pedagogies can no longer be random,
“catch-as-catch-can.” Professional development must be well thought out and
supportive of faculty teaching and learning.
“Leaders in
higher education are challenged to foster learning in faculty and staff to
create the learning college. Adding to this challenge is the reality of limited
resources and unclear priorities that are at least partially the cause of a
dramatic shift in what constitutes the faculty. In an ideal world the cost and
time to achieve high standards of teaching and learning would be no object. In
the actual world, where affordable education is a mandate, cost is an important
consideration for the majority of the 4200 institutions in the
MUST READ: Faculty Development in a National Sample of
Community Colleges
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_3_27/ai_60498501
The study found a glaring lack of commitment on the part of the leadership for faculty development at the 130 community colleges that responded to the survey. At 56 (43.1%) of the colleges, the person responsible reported that he or she spent less than 10% or less of his or her working hours on faculty development.
The literature review provided a list of the components
of effective faculty development plans.
·
The first of these is institutional support, that is, a climate that
fosters and encourages faculty development.
·
The second component of an effective faculty development program is the
existence of a formalized, structured development program and activities. The
colleges involved in this study relied on a mix-and-match set of voluntary
activities. The research is almost unanimous on the ineffectiveness of such an
approach: "First, a relatively small number of faculty take advantage of
the programs; second, those faculty who do participate are often the ones who
seem to need them least; and third, most faculty development efforts seem to
result in little if any measurable, long-term improvement in teaching and
learning"
·
The third component of a faculty development effort is connecting faculty development
to the reward structure.
·
The fourth component of an effective faculty development program is faculty
ownership; there can be no ownership of an unstructured, leaderless program.
·
The fifth component is colleague support for investments in teaching.
The author defines the activities that
distinguish successful development programs and describes a survey administered
in 1998 to faculty development officers at 250 randomly selected community
colleges. Based on responses from 130 colleges, the author profiles those
responsible for faculty development, summarizes the extent that each
development activity is used, and articulates the need for concerted faculty
development efforts at community colleges.
Faculty development has been a
definitive movement in higher education for at least 30 years; the effects,
however, are hardly visible in college classrooms (
Schuster, Wheeler, & Associates, 1990):
Colleges and universities, for whatever reasons, have been neither sufficiently alert to, the ever-changing circumstances of their instructional staffs nor adequately resourceful in meeting their changing needs for professional development. It is indeed striking how much has been written about faculty growth and renewal and how few campuses have seen fit to develop comprehensive, systematic programs. As suggested below, splendid conceptual models are available; adequate programs have not taken seed. (Schuster et al., 1990, pp. 3-4) Why have faculty development efforts
had so little impact? The reasons are not easily discernible despite the
existence of a large volume of literature dealing with faculty development. One
possible reason is that even when such programs are highly successful and
lasting, they infrequently transfer well to other institutions. Many observers
would agree with Schratz's (1990) assessment:
In many cases so far, activities aimed at improving teaching, and thus trying to answer faculty questions, have had no more than short-term effects. Although these activities aroused faculty interest while underway, they generally failed to prompt instructional staff to reflect on their teaching practices over a longer period of time. (p. 99) Moreover, many faculty development
programs lack cohesiveness and often involve little more than collections of
loosely connected efforts. A search of the literature revealed a few articles
that describe comprehensive faculty development programs (Jennings, Barlar, & Bartling, 1991). A
comprehensive faculty development plan comprises more than a single, isolated
effort or a smorgasbord of disparate efforts. Although a well-formed faculty
development plan recognizes that many diverse activities are needed over a long
period of time, it also recognizes that these activities must be united around
a common institutional mission--the systematic, demonstrable, and highly
regarded improvement of teaching. As Clark, Corcoran, and Lewis assert (1986),
"We cannot assume that menus for individual faculty (voluntary) selections
will be adequate or responsive to current or continuing faculty vitality
needs" (p. 193).
A review of literature on faculty
development and its implications at community colleges (Clark & Corcoran,
1989; Eble & McKeachie,
1985; Kort, 1992; Stark et al., 1988) suggests that
the following are important components of any effective faculty development
program: institutional support, that is a climate that fosters and encourages
faculty development; a formalized, structured, and goal-directed development
program; a connection between faculty development and the reward structure;
faculty ownership; support from colleagues for investments in teaching; and a
belief that good teaching is valued by administrators.
A climate that fosters and
encourages faculty development. The one resounding assertion repeated throughout the
literature is the vital importance of leadership from the chief academic
officer, as exemplified by Nwagwu (1998): "The
efforts of enhancing teaching effectiveness lie at the door at the college
dean. The college dean must provide the leadership for and
commitment to improving teaching" (p. 13).
The existence of a formalized,
structured, and goal-directed development program. To produce discernible results for
community colleges, faculty development activities must be connected to the
institutional mission. "Whether faculty activities are considered
productive or not depends on whether they relate to the faculty member's
personal and professional goals and to the institution's mission" (Bland
& Schmitz, 1990, p. 45). Faculty development programs that are
little more than a series of mostly voluntary, single-purpose, isolated efforts
or a loosely related set of disparate activities are unlikely to produce any
real institutional change (Angelo, 1994; Clark & Corcoran, 1989; Tierney,
Ahern, & Kidwell, 1996).
Connecting faculty development
to the reward structure. Although all rewards need not be monetary, those who
attempt to improve their teaching must be recognized in some way. The
recognition needs to include praise and support for experimentation even when
it tails. Faculty members need to know that their efforts are appreciated and
that taking a risk is not damaging to their career. Otherwise, innovation is
stifled (Ferren, 1996; Harnish
& Creamer, 1985-86; Millis, 1994; Nwagwu, 1998; Sorcinelli, 1994; Watson & Grossman, 1994).
Faculty ownership. Faculty members need to be
actively involved in designing and implementing any faculty development plan
(NCSPOD, nd). Although they need leadership from
academic administrators, faculty members will resist and resent any development
plan imposed upon them. Moreover, research indicates that administrators often
misjudge the development needs perceived by the faculty (Caffey,
1979; Maxwell & Kaluskas, 1992).
Colleagues' support for
investments in teaching. The respect of and recognition from colleagues is
important to most professionals. Because faculty tend to believe that pedagogy
is related to discipline (Spear, Seymour, & McGrath, 1992), they are more
likely to accept pedagogical advice from those within their own discipline. As
noted by Maxwell & Kaluskas, (1992),
[the] ideal type of consultant is a colleague in one's own department who is an up-to-date specialist in the specific discipline and who also can serve as a model in instructional methods.... Surveys of community colleges indicate that expert consultation by colleagues on specific teaching matters ... were among ... the more, effective modes of development. (pp. 356-357)
A belief that good teaching is
valued by administrators. If teachers believe that good teaching is not valued,
they have no incentive to improve. Some community college faculty members have
expressed to this researcher the belief that all administrators care about is
keeping the full-time equivalent student numbers high. Even if this is a
misperception, it needs to be confronted.
Because community college educators
traditionally pride themselves on emphasizing teaching, one might assume that
exemplary faculty development programs can be found on community college
campuses. The study described in this report was undertaken to evaluate how
well community colleges are meeting these faculty development challenges. This
study replicated
Conclusion
The literature review provided a list
of the components of effective faculty development plans. The first of these is
institutional support, that is, a climate that fosters and encourages faculty
development. It is encouraging that the chief academic officers who responded
to this study do believe in the teaching abilities of their faculty and believe
that they have excellent teachers at their colleges. Nevertheless, they
provided little evidence of concerted efforts to support and encourage faculty
development.
The second component of an effective
faculty development program is the existence of a formalized, structured
development program and activities. No college had a formalized, structured
program, and most relied on traditional activities (sabbatical, promotion, and
tenure) to motivate faculty to teach well. The colleges involved in this study
relied on a mix-and-match set of voluntary activities. The research is almost
unanimous on the ineffectiveness of such an approach: "First, a relatively
small number of faculty take advantage of the programs; second, those faculty who
do participate are often the ones who seem to need them least; and third, most
faculty development efforts seem to result in little if any measurable,
long-term improvement in teaching and learning" (Angelo, 1994, p. 3).
little if any measurable, long-term
improvement in teaching and learning" (Angelo, 1994, p. 3).
The third component of a faculty
development effort is connecting faculty development to the reward structure.
It is encouraging that the community colleges involved in this study made
efforts to connect effective teaching with promotion and tenure decisions. The
tenuousness of the connection between teaching and rewards, however, revealed
itself explicitly in responses to questions on the survey about how tenure (or
continuing contract), merit pay, and promotion decisions were made at these
colleges. Student evaluations played only a minor part in any of these
decisions at the colleges in this study. Peers were even less influential,
whereas administrative evaluation carried the most weight. In most of the
two-year colleges surveyed, administrators had little or no direct knowledge of
a faculty member's teaching. Administrators were much more likely to have
knowledge of service to the college and the professional accomplishments of
faculty. Neither arena tells us much about teaching.
The fourth component of an effective
faculty development program is faculty ownership; there can be no ownership of
an unstructured, leaderless program. The fifth
component is colleague support for
investments in teaching. According to the chief academic officers who responded
to this survey, this component existed at their community college campuses and,
in fact, 45 (34.6%) reported the existence of formal peer mentoring programs.
The sixth component is a belief that good teaching is valued by administrators.
Again, according to these chief academic officers, this existed at their
colleges.
The community colleges involved in this
study did in fact have three of the six components for effective faculty
development. Most encouraging was the fact that good teaching is valued and
connected to evaluation and tenure decisions. Nevertheless, the lack of
leadership and a formalized, structured program indicated serious detriments to
effective faculty development.
Course Embedded Faculty Development
Course-Embedded
Faculty Development via team-teaching in
Learning Communities (LCs) is
Faculty
Development: Shaking Foundations/Renewing Minds
Research
on effective faculty development reveals that faculty value not only the
intellectual stimulation it inspires, but also the new collegial community
established through diversity work. Participants also are frequently surprised to
discover that faculty development activities validate good teaching and good
teachers. They feel greater permission to take more risks as teachers and
scholars. Their teaching becomes more student-centered; they focus more on how
to spark students' intellectual engagement. When faculty themselves are
suddenly students again tackling unsettling new material, they reconnect in new
ways to their own students' experiences.
The
Teaching Learning Academy –
The
Teaching/Learning Academy, a community of practice,
supports new professors, counselors, and librarians as they develop Individualized Learning Plans a
fundamental phase of the tenure process designed to assist tenure candidates to
expand and improve their professional practices and students' learning. TLA
provides support on pedagogy, course design, student development, and
professional portfolio development.
LaGuardia
Center for Teaching and Learning –
The
LaGuardia Center for Teaching and Learning works with faculty to explore issues
of pedagogy and practice in order to advance student learning at LaGuardia
through our interdisciplinary workshops, forums, and on-going seminars, faculty
exchange ideas, study new approaches, and test innovative strategies for
building student skills and understanding.
Professional Development in
Mathematics: The Next Few Years
There are
many important discussions of professional development issues that are going on
in all areas of academia; we mathematicians ignore these discussions at our own
peril. We need to involve ourselves in these debates before we find ourselves
being dictated to, to everyone's detriment.
Professional
development in mathematics departments is necessary. Now is an especially good
time to do it, and now is also a good time to decide on the criteria by which
it is to be accomplished. We need to enter this arena, for our own good, and
for the future of mathematics.
New
College for Instructional Innovation
"Teaching scholarship"
should not be confused with teaching. Central to teaching as scholarship is the
continuous involvement of the faculty in not only the study of a discipline's
content but also pedagogy and curriculum relevant to the discipline. This
active cycle of inquiry, engagement, and reflection turns teaching into
scholarship. The
Campus-wide, concern has been
expressed about student "disengagement"-from their classes and from
the university community. Faculty members are particularly encouraged,
therefore, to explore changes in instruction which foster more active student
involvement in the learning process and support the development of communities
of learners within their classes.
Teaching and Learning
Center – SUNY
The Center is designed to
promote excellence in teaching and research by facilitating teaching and
learning initiatives across the campus. To achieve this goal the Center will
build on the knowledge and expertise of the SUNY New Paltz
faculty and the instructional support staff. The Center seeks to create a
dynamic environment that initiates and sustains a dialogue among faculty and
strengthens the connections between teaching and learning in and across
academic disciplines and schools, supports the collaborative initiatives of
faculty to explore and develop innovative pedagogies and new curricula, and
encourages and supports professional development activities that contribute to
pedagogical knowledge, instructional development, and research in teaching and
learning.
Goals:
·
Serve as a resource for information about events, conferences, research
projects, publications, grants, and best practices related to teaching and
learning.
The Community College
Professor: Teacher and Scholar
Although the teaching role is not a
necessary condition for successful scholarship, some form of scholarship
appears to be a necessary condition for successful teaching over an extended
period of time. As a result, the stress on teaching in community colleges may
have led to a decline in the quality of teaching.
Perspectives
on Faculty Development
These eight multi-media interviews with fellows from
the National Learning Communities Project (2000-04) describe why a robust
faculty development program is essential to learning community work.
Research has shown that there are more effective ways to facilitate
learning than the traditional teaching. Lecturing to passive students who are
busy taking notes is less effective than actively engaging students in their
own education. Engaged, active, hands-on, problem-based, and project-oriented are
all current terms used to describe an approach that recognizes that students
learn by doing. The goal is to encourage critical thinking and the
understanding of concepts—not the memorization of facts, dates, and figures.
Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching –
Discipline-Specific Faculty
Development