Faculty Development at High Performing Colleges and Universities


Published on

Presentation at POD 2012 conference of my dissertation research

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • astonished at lack of “teacher training”, dearth of good teaching skills.
  • Faculty Development at High Performing Colleges and Universities

    1. 1. Faculty Development at High Performing Colleges and Universities POD Conference Seattle 2012 Barbara Bates, PhD DeVry University, Denver bbates@devry.edu Slides at : www.slideshare.net./barbbates1947
    2. 2. My Background• Taught 4 years at middle school level• Taught 14 years at post-secondary level• Began faculty development 12 years agoProfessional angst… How do successful colleges and universities promote effective teaching?
    3. 3. Spent 9 years investigating:• What comprises effective teaching?• How do you motivate faculty to adopt effective teaching practices?• What is the role of faculty development in helping faculty learn and adopt effective educational practices?• What do faculty developers do (differently) at schools that, by NSSE standards, rank as high performing institutions?
    4. 4. Purpose of Research• Explore relationship between faculty development and effective teaching at high performing colleges and universities.• Use best practice in faculty development as framework for exploration.
    5. 5. Theoretical frameworkKuh et al. (2005), Documenting EffectiveEducational Practices (DEEP)DEEP schools have…• Higher than predicted student engagement, learning, and persistence.• More effective teaching practices.Did faculty development play a role in these outcomes?• FD practices, structures, and relationships compared to best FD practice and to studies in Literature.Gibbs, 2003; Hellyer & Boschmann, 1993; King & Lawler, 2003; Levinsosn-Rose & Menges, 1981; Rust, 1999; Sorcinelli, 2001.
    6. 6. FD “Best Practice”• Faculty ownership • Community building • Support & rewards for change process.• Outcome measurements – variety of sources – integrated into the faculty development program.
    7. 7. FD “Best Practice” cont.• Development activities – participant engagement – learner focus – address the full range of faculty roles.• Alignment of faculty Wells.edu development goals with • Gibbs, 2003; Hellyer & Boschmann, 1993; King & Lawler, 2003; Levinsosn-Rose & institutional mission. Menges, 1981; Rust, 1999; Sorcinelli, 2001.
    8. 8. MY RESEARCH• Participating Schools – FD director Survey – Phone interview• Participants – Faculty Development Directors – Administrators• Research questions and methods• Major findings and supporting data• Implications and limitations
    9. 9. Participating Schools handout (Phone Interview)• 2 Private, religious-affiliated, LA (1 women’s)• 2 State, Hispanic-focus: 1 large, 1 small• 1 HBUC state university• 3 Large, state, Research I Universities• 3 Small private, LA (1 Men’s, 1 Women’s, 1 Coed)• 2 Small state LA• Programs in existence between 4-50 years (median 12.5 years; mode 15 years)• Participation rate: 65% of DEEP schools
    10. 10. Participants-FD survey handout• 3 from Large institutions• 9 from Small institutions• 7 with a FD Center; 5 without FD Center.• Programs in existence from 2-20 years (median 9; mode 8)• Budget of FD program, excluding salary: $110. per year to $600,000 per year (median $45,000; mode $40,000)• Participation rate 60%
    11. 11. Participant’s Administrator survey• 1 Religious-affiliated LA• 1 Small, private LA• 1 Large Research I university• 1 Small HBUC state university• Participation rate 4/13 = 31%
    12. 12. Finding answers…• Common structures and Qualitative Methods practices among faculty • Directors Survey Responses development programs? • Directors’ Interview• Faculty development at Responses DEEP schools congruent with or different from best practice? Quantitative Methods• Faculty development • Directors’ interview perceived impact on response frequencies teaching? (from faculty • Ranking of director’s development director’s and response means and administrator’s viewpoint) comparisons • Administrators’ survey response frequencies
    13. 13. Major findings• Practices and structures congruent with most FD best practicesDifferences:1. More frequent and more extensive assessment compared to Non-DEEP schools2. Collaboration a strong value in program and activities.3. Faculty Learning Communities a common vehicle for building relationships and achieving FD goals.4. Mutually supportive and encouraging relationships between FD  faculty and between FD  administration.5. Faculty developers facilitated the synergy among FD, faculty, and administration – acted as catalyst, initiated relationship opportunities.
    14. 14. Qualitative results of phone interview handoutRank Node (tree hierarchy) of 68 total nodes # of # Refs respondents total 1 Quality teaching (Culture) 13 76 2 Cross-campus collaboration (FD best practice) 13 67 3 Faculty Ownership (FD best practice) 12 57 4 School-wide improvement (Culture) 13 53 5 Focus on student success (Culture) 12 47 6 Collegial faculty relations (Culture) 8 47 7 Learning-development & growth (Faculty) 11 42 8 Participation (Faculty Development) 11 42 9 Pedagogy (Faculty Teaching) 10 41 10 Outcome Measurement (FD best practice) 13 39 11 Teaching Improvement (Faculty Teaching) 11 36 12 Incentives & rewards (FD best practice) 10 36 13 Community building (FD best practice) 7 36 14 Student assessment (Faculty Teaching) 10 35 15 Faculty Learning communities (FD best practice) 9 35
    15. 15. Cross-campus collaboration“. . . what faculty are doing in terms of their own discipline and helping other colleagues in developing their abilities as teachers. So it could be anything from kind of formal action research to groups or committees getting together to start an initiative that improves something across the campus or across the curriculum.” Midwest Women’s College• “We have faculty teaching cooperatives, like faculty learning communities, that meet every 2 weeks for a semester that include faculty from across the disciplines - theme based.” Pacific State
    16. 16. Collegiality“So much of what we do, you know it sounds like socializing. . . . Four days a week we have lunch in this center for faculty to do some kind of program. Im encouraging collaborative institutional projects . . and those have been wildly successful. I originally started calling [the center], as a joke, the Center for Climate Change at Central College.’”“In terms of collegiality its sort of a horizontal academic culture . .. I think we create opportunities to learn together about what we care about as teachers.” Midwest Womens College
    17. 17. Faculty Learning Communities“. . .faculty learning communities . . . have kept faculty talking to each other across disciplines; they get faculty out of their silos and . . . give them a vehicle to talk about teaching and learning.” North Central University
    18. 18. Assessment“There are, like, two or three levels of assessment... about the quality of the event, about the usefulness, and that is immediate. The other is, if we are doing courses, we get other people involved in order to see if there are changes. And if we are doing projects, we ask faculty to get evidence of the impact of what they learn, and evidences of how they measure that, so we are then looking at portfolios, or to write reports.” Southeast State
    19. 19. FD Assessment strategies for program(Survey - Percent of participants using (Likert))• Number of workshop • Focus groups 50 participants 92 • Program exit surveys to• Workshop evaluation 83 evaluate experience 50• Institutional needs • Periodic interviews 42 assessment 67 • Workshop learning• Frequency of contact assessments 33 with faculty 58 • Number of subscribers• Strategic planning and to newsletter 17 program reviews 58• Satisfaction /value surveys 58
    20. 20. FD program Outcome assessment (Survey - Percent of respondents using this)• Participant satisfaction 100• Institutional impact 83• Faculty behavior change 75• Faculty knowledge change 67• Student performance 58• Faculty attitude change 50• Student retention 50(questionnaire, student faculty evaluations, student knowledge survey, CEQ, TMI, ATI, SEEQ)
    21. 21. Importance of collaboration in success of FD program and activities (Survey - percent positive responses)Programs• Collaboration among faculty 100• Network among faculty across departments 75• Establish learning communities 67Activities• Planned in collaboration with faculty 100• Peer collaboration in activity 92
    22. 22. Major findings cont.• Practices and structures congruent with most FD best practicesDifferences:1. More frequent and more extensive assessment compared to Non-DEEP schools2. Collaboration a strong value in program and activities.3. Faculty Learning Communities a common vehicle for building relationships and achieving FD goals.4. Mutually supportive and encouraging relationships between FD  faculty and between FD  administration.5. Faculty developers facilitated the synergy among FD, faculty, and administration – acted as catalyst, initiated relationship opportunities.
    23. 23. Strong relationship between FD and faculty"Student success has grown out of our facultys high expectations of students . . . Our faculty are really committed; they care about the wellbeing of our students. We want to see our students succeed; we want our students to change the world in a positive way". Central College"Student success is the nature of faculty here . . . Our faculty are inherently dedicated to students". Western Catholic University"All teaching, learning, and faculty development revolve around the goal of improved student learning. Faculty are extraordinary - committed to students". Pacific State University
    24. 24. Strong relationship between FD and administration“I report to the provost... I love reporting to him and he is very supportive . . . Oh, I totally could not do my job without him.... And it sounds really cheesy but Ive always felt like [my provost] has been a person who really does have my back.” Northeast University“The office of the academic vice president, has been generous with financial support and sort of emotional and spiritual support for what were doing . . . I have support from the president on down for the work that the center does.” Western Catholic
    25. 25. Findings from administrator’s survey• These administrators agreed strongly: – Teaching performance connected to rewards – They [administrators] champion teaching excellence – Excellent teaching is learned, not based on teacher’s characteristics. – Faculty development and excellent teaching are important parts of their [the administrator’s] job.
    26. 26. Administrator’s hiring process (used 50-100% of the time)• Hiring process requires: • Teaching demonstration • Statement of teaching philosophy • Evidence of past excellent teaching • Teach a class with students • Input from faculty development director or staff.
    27. 27. Administrators Response (ranked): What impacts teaching effectiveness ? (Mean response on a 0-5 scale)• Faculty development programs help our faculty learn excellent teaching (4.75)• Focus on good teaching sets high standard (4.75)• Faculty development programs create a climate of excellent teaching (4.70)• Faculty development is a pivotal element in creating norm of excellent teaching (4.50)• Campus climate encourages teachers to strive for improvement (4.50)• Reputation attracts faculty who value excellent teaching (4.25)• We hire excellent teachers (3.75)
    28. 28. Implications for Practice – Faculty Developers• Connect with administrators – develop plans to help implement their goals through FD programming.• Work with administrators to garner their support for FD mission, programs, and goals via funding, reward structures and ceremonies, visibility of the FD program and visibility of their support.• Connect with faculty to garner their help in development and delivery of FD program as well as inter-departmental networking and buy-in.• Develop cross- campus collaborations to enhance the collegial relationships among faculty and reduce the threat of change as faculty try out new ways of teaching. Faculty Learning Communities are a venue for such collaborations.
    29. 29. Implications - Administrators• Enhance communication and partnership between FD program and administration by removing barriers to access; helping to publicize their goals, programs, and activities; and partnering with FD to achieve institutional goals.• Build strong, mutually supportive relationships with faculty developers and faculty; participate in FD programs or activities to demonstrate visible support for teaching excellence.• Build culture of teaching excellence through hiring practices and through acknowledging and rewarding teaching excellence via promotion and tenure, ceremonies and certificates.
    30. 30. Limitations of research• No direct or causal link between FD practices, teaching behaviors, or student outcomes.• No direct information from faculty – only through views of Faculty Developers and administrators.• FD director bias in favor of their programs threatens validity of data.• High performance institutions may distort role of cultural climate.
    31. 31. Limitations (cont.)• Participants not necessarily representative sample; perhaps only the best or those with an interest in community building responded.• All data is from self report• All the support for teaching effectiveness is from NSSE study; no direct observation or measurement of data or connection to student outcomes in this research• No inter-rater reliability done for nVIVO qualitative coding scheme; threat to reliability and trustworthiness.
    32. 32. Thank you!• Questions?• Conversations• Please feel free to access my dissertationhttp://pqdtopen.proquest.com/Search: Barbara A. Bates