Fundamentals of Faculty Development

Overview of Material

Introduction
Fundamentals of Faculty Development provides an evidence-based foundation in the field of faculty development, focusing on essential knowledge, core principles, and practical skills to apply to your own setting. You will learn about the evolution of faculty development in higher education, the core goals, structures, and services of teaching centers, and exemplars of evidence-based approaches to the delivery of teaching improvement programs and resources. 

The course was designed for prospective and current practitioners who were interested in the improvement of teaching and student learning in higher education.  It was created and co-taught by established faculty developers, Mei Yau Shih and Mary Deane Sorcinelli in our Center for Teaching & Learning (CTL). We acknowledge the generous contributions to the design process from Dr. Claire Hamilton, Dr. Beth Lisi, Dr. Gabriela Weaver, Dr. Brad Wheeler, Sarah Razani Marmon, Maria McSorley, and Michele Vanasse. 

While this content was originally developed as a course, the materials can now be completed asynchronously either individually or in a group setting with fellow faculty developers at Centers for Teaching and Learning.

Learning Goals:
This course has several broad goals to help you build a foundation in faculty development as well as explore approaches for delivering faculty development programs and services. Upon completion of this course, you will be able to:

• Apply knowledge of the history and theoretical foundations of faculty development to contexts within your own experience, professional studies, or careers. 
• Describe the range of types of faculty development centers/programs in colleges and universities, including goals, structures, services, and collaborations with other units.
• Assess the professional development needs of your faculty and institution. 
• Identify evidence-based approaches faculty developers use to deliver services.
• Design successful learning communities, institutes, and workshops. 
• Develop your instructional consultation skills in group and individual settings. 

Course Content:

• Part 1: Getting Grounded in Faculty Development
  • Module 1 - Defining the field and its current landscape 
  • Module 2 - Exploring program types, goals, structures, and collaborations 
• Part 2: Fundamental Skills and Practices 
  • Module 3 - Assessing the professional development needs of your faculty and institution
  • Module 4 - Using evidence-based approaches to deliver services and programs and evaluate CTL outcomes and impact
  • Module 5 - Planning successful learning communities, institutes, and workshops 
  • Module 6 - Developing your instructional consultation skills 

Readings

The material for this course draws from many sources, but several selected chapters will come from two books that exemplify research and practice in the field:  A Guide to Faculty Development and Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence.   

• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A.E. & Rivard, J. (2016). Faculty development in the age of evidence. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Gillespie, K. J., & Robertson, D. L. (2010). A guide to faculty development. (2nd Ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Module 1: Defining the field and its current landscape

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module, you will be able to:

• Define faculty development
• Explain the evolution and "Ages" of faculty development
• Describe the current landscape of faculty development

Readings

• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. &; Rivard, J. (2016). Introduction. Faculty development in
  the age of evidence (pp. 1-15). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Lee, V. (2010). Program types and prototypes. In Gillespie, K. J., &; Robertson, D. L. (Eds.). A
  guide to faculty development, 2nd ed. (pp 21-35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Check, T., et al. (Spring 2020). Report of the Dean's Task Force on Teaching and Learning. This excellent report also contains an extensive bibliography on creating and sustaining a CTL.

Reflection
Recognizing the evolving definition and “ages” of faculty development: 

1. What are one or two interesting/provocative ideas that you take away from the Module 1 video mini-lecture and readings?
2. What is one specific way that the lecture and/or readings connect with your position or professional context? 

Activity/Assignment

• How is faculty development defined in your CTL? Does the CTL support the development of faculty members in a range of professional roles or is the CTL more focused on the faculty member as teacher and facilitator of student learning?  Other definitions?  Explain your response.

• What can you infer about the history of your CTL? In what “Age” do you think it was created? Describe what “Age” (or combination of “Ages”) you believe it now inhabits and explain your reasoning.

Key takeaways:

1. The term "faculty development" describes: 1) the total development of faulty members in all of their professional roles, and 2) a more focused definition of the faculty members as teacher and facilitator of student learning. The field is more recently described by the term "educational development" to encompass the expanding roles of faculty developers.
2. Faculty professional development needs, interests and opportunities can range across areas (e.g., teaching, student learning, scholarly writing, career advancement, academic leadership) and career stages (e.g. graduate student, early career faculty, mid-career faculty, senior faculty, academic leaders).
3. In a 2006 study of the field, Creating the Future of Faculty Development, the authors (Sorcinelli, Austin, Beach & Eddy) divided the field into five ages that include: Age of the Scholar (pre-1960s), Age of the Teacher (1970s), Age of the Developer (1980s), Age of the Learner (1990s), Age of the Network (2000s). In a 2016 follow up study of the field, Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence, the authors (Beach, Sorcinelli, Austin & Rivard) identify the Age of Evidence as a new era age that has emerged. The Age of Evidence is influenced by heightened interest in demonstrating student learning outcomes and student success, measuring the impact of teaching on student learning, and assessing the impact of faculty development. 

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.

Module 2 - Exploring program types, goals, structures, and collaborations

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module, you will be able to:

• Identify the key goals of faculty development centers
• Distinguish among the variety of faculty development structures
• Discuss the priority issues for which centers offer services
• Determine the collaborations centers have with other units on campus

Readings:

• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. & Rivard, J. (2016). Ch. 2. What guides our work? Faculty development in the age of evidence (pp.28-38). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. & Rivard, J. (2016). Ch. 3. Where and with whom do we work? Faculty development in the age of evidence (pp. 39-51). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. & Rivard, J. (2016). Ch. 4. Services we focus on. Faculty development in the age of evidence (pp. 52-74). Sterling, VA: Stylus. 

Activity/Assignment

Reflect and answer the following three questions, considering the emphases of CTLs in 2016: 

1. What are the guiding principles and key goals that guide the work of your CTL? Have any of them changed in emphasis or degree over the last few years?  If so, how, and why? 

2. List up to five issues that your CTL addresses with services. How do those issues/services compare with the top issues identified in the studies—similar or different? Are there key issues that your CTL is not addressing or that you believe will be important to address in the next few years? Why?

3. What can you infer about the strength of your CTL’s collaborations with other units? Identify the units that your CTL most collaborates with and why. What do you see as the benefits and challenges of cross-unit collaboration? (If your CTL does not collaborate with other units, why not?  What partnerships would you most like to see and why? What benefits and challenges do you foresee in such collaborations?)  

Key takeaways:

1. Research indicates that the three primary goals that guide faculty development programs are: creating or sustaining a culture of teaching excellence; advancing new initiatives in teaching and learning; and supporting individual faculty members’ goals for professional development.
2. The structure for faculty development programs has become more centralized and formalized in the past decade.
3. The organizational context and reporting lines of faculty development centers differ across institutional types.
4. Top issues addressed through faculty development services include new faculty development, integrating technology into traditional teaching and learning settings, learner-centered teaching, and assessment of student learning outcomes. 
5. Faculty development centers primarily collaborate with technology units, but they also moderately collaborate with academic deans, libraries, and assessment offices.

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.

Module 3 - Assessing the professional development needs of your faculty and institution

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module, you will be able to:

• Describe the purpose of a needs assessment and essential questions it can answer.
• Develop an assessment strategy for examining an institution’s culture, context, and infrastructure
• Identify data collection methods and keys to a successful assessment.

Readings:

The following readings provide you with an overview of needs assessments for program development and evaluation:

• Brown, E. Haras, C., Hurney, C., Iuzzini, J., Magruder, E., Sorcinelli, M.D., Taylor, S.C., Wright, M. (2018). A center for teaching and learning matrix. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education and POD Network. https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Center-For-Teaching-Learning-Matrix.pdf
• Cohen, M.W. (2010). Listen, learn, lead. In Gillespie, K. J., & Robertson, D. L. (Eds.) A guide to faculty development, 2nd ed. (pp. 67-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Activity/Assignment

1. Overall, of the guiding principles, leading goals, collaborations, and CTL services this module discussed, which one or two of the 2016 study finding(s) resonate most with you, or align most with your aspirations as a faculty developer?
2. Do you see or imagine the finding(s) you identified as changing, especially considering the continued post-pandemic impact on teaching and learning in higher education?
3. Taking the pulse of the faculty is important for any faculty development program. What are one or two key ideas you now have regarding how to gather useful information on the interests and concerns of faculty and/or other stakeholders through a needs assessment? Did any concerns about the process arise?
4. What have been the one or two “signature”/most successful approach(es) for facilitating faculty professional learning in your CTL and why? Is there an approach that your CTL might consider adding or subtracting given evidence of effectiveness, one that would add greater value to your CTL?

Considering your identified CTL, respond to the following two questions

1. What evidence can you find that your CTL’s programming is based on an assessment of the needs of faculty and/or other stakeholders? If you cannot find evidence, where would you recommend your CTL get started in terms of assessing needs? 
2. What benefits and challenges do you foresee (or have you experienced) in developing, conducting, and analyzing needs assessment data for your CTL?

Key takeaways:

• Before considering which services to offer and approaches to take, it's important to first discover what is already in place and what the professional needs and interests of the target audience are. 
• There are a variety of different methods you can use to ask important questions for your needs assessment. These might include existing reports, interviews, focus groups, surveys, questionnaires, etc.
• A needs assessment should be treated as a faculty development initiative that can raise your center's visibility and credibility.
• A needs assessment encourages your target audience's involvement and sense of ownership in the shaping of a program.

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.

Module 4 - Using evidence-based approaches to deliver services and programs and evaluate CTL outcomes and impact

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module, you will be able to: 

• Identify the range of approaches that faculty developers use to deliver professional development services
• Identify examples of approaches that are evidence-based 
• Discuss additional services and approaches faculty developers would like to add or expand in their center's portfolios

Readings

• Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. & Rivard, J. (2016). Our approaches to faculty development. Faculty development in the age of evidence (pp. 75-88). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
• Chism, N., Holly, M. & Harris, C. (2012). Researching the impact of educational development: Basis for informed practice. To Improve the Academy, 31: 129-145.
• Sorcinelli, M.D. The evaluation of faculty development programs in the United States. A fifty-year retrospective (1970s-2020).  Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2020, 2
• Wright, M., Horii, C., Felten, P. Sorcinelli, M.D., Kaplan, M. (2018, January). Faculty development improves teaching and learning. Retrieved from https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/POD-Speaks-Issue-2_Jan2018-1.pdf

Activity/Assignment

• Given the current disruptions in our colleges and universities, have your CTL’s signature approaches been altered and if so, how? What might this mean for evidence-based faculty development practices going forward?
• Reflect on the readings in terms of how your CTL currently evaluates programs and services.  How might your CTL enhance its assessment of outcomes and impact?    

Key takeaways:

• Faculty development approaches can vary based on the number and expertise of center staff, faculty time for professional development, and the resources of the center. 
• The approaches centers use most often to deliver services are short workshops, individual consults, and web-based resources.
• Research on evidence-based approaches gives guidance on the impact of workshops/intensive institutes, individual consultation, faculty learning communities, working with departments, and the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL).
• When asked what approaches they would add to their portfolios if they had the resources and opportunities, developers identify the following: faculty learning communities, intensive institutes and workshops, observation of teaching (by a consultant or a peer), and asynchronous online programs.

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.

Module 5 - Planning successful learning communities, institutes, and workshops

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module , you will be able to: 

• Identify different approaches to deliver faculty teaching development services
• Understand how to develop and deliver intensive Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs)
• Develop and deliver meaningful and practical faculty workshops
• Design department/discipline specific workshops (on demand)
• Understand how to design and moderate a theme-based community of practice

Readings

The following links/readings provide a good overview of different group approaches faculty developers or teaching centers have adopted to deliver their services and programs:

• FLCs: The Lilly Endowment created a Teaching Fellows Program in the 1980s, we think the first FLC design and many campuses have adapted that model. University of Miami of Ohio has studied FLCs extensively. We are including a link to their FLC site, which has an abundance of resources. Cox, Milton D. Developing Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs): Communities of Practice in Higher Education.
• FLCs: The CTL at UMass Amherst began a Lilly Teaching Fellowship in 1986, which has been continually assessed and refined over the last three decades. It has been the cornerstone of many of the FLC offered by CTL https://www.umass.edu/ctl/lilly-teaching-fellowship
• FLCs: Another helpful site is at the University of Arizona, which facilitates an all faculty-led FLC program. They have a “how to” guide at https://academicaffairs.arizona.edu/flc-background
• CDI: There have been many face-to-face Course Design Institutes; the first-- and an award-winning CDI-- is at the CTL, University of Virginia. For summer 2020, they have created a C3 Design, all online for UVA faculty. They have allowed in external participants to their in-person events in the past https://cte.virginia.edu/programs-grants/course-design-institute

Activity/Assignment

Reflect on the scholarship and practice of faculty learning communities (FLCs), institutes/workshops, and web-based resources found in this week’s video and readings. In what ways are these services being offered (or not) in your CTL? Which of these approaches do you think carries the most potential for supporting faculty professional learning on your campus going forward? Why?

We’ve addressed the benefits and challenges in designing and implementing FLCs, workshop/institutes, and web-based resources. Imagine that your CTL has asked you to develop an FLC, institute/workshop, or develop/curate web-based resources:

1. Which of the three approaches most interests you and why?
2. What teaching/learning/faculty development need or issue do you see as important to address with this approach and why?
3. What might be some of the challenges in designing, implementing, and assessing the value to your faculty of this approach/issue and why? How might you ameliorate the challenges?

Key Takeaways:

• Effective Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) connect faculty who are eager to collaborate and learn, but also hold members accountable to a common agenda and outcomes. 
• Faculty Learning Communities are usually either cohort‐based or topic‐based.
• To design and implement a faculty learning community, there are some key components to consider: 
  • Having a designated faculty developer or faculty member to coordinate the learning community
  • Having a kick-off to a Faculty Learning Community with a half- or full-day retreat 
  • Having a syllabus or list of topics for the seminars
  • Tapping campus partners 
  • Meeting frequently
  • Requiring an end-of-program product
  • Conducting an end-of-program assessment to document the teaching center's impact on campus
• Workshops allow everyone at the session some personal attention and a chance to be heard. They can also serve as an opportunity to demonstrate and encourage participants to practice innovative methods.
• Workshops that are concentrated within a 2-to-5-day block are often framed as intensive institutes rather than workshops. An Institute usually provides participants an opportunity to deeply experience the process or topic they’re focused on, such as technology tools for teaching.
• An effective workshop requires careful planning before, during, and after the event. 
• Web-based resources provide just-in-time resources to faculty but is very labor intensive to maintain them. 

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.

Module 6 - Developing your instructional consultation skills

Learning Objectives: At the end of this module, you will be able to:

• Understand how to conduct class observations by consultant or peer observation and provide faculty feedback
• Identify key elements for successful individual consultations
• Conduct mid-semester assessments for improved teaching and learning

Readings:

The following readings provide you a good introduction to the various individual approaches to faculty development services and programs:

• Kaplan, M.A (1997). A Typology of Consulting Styles. From CRLT, University of Michigan. The interactions of teaching improvement.( In K. T. Brinko & R. J. Menges (eds.). Practically speaking: A sourcebook for instructional consultants in higher education, pp. 3-8). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

• Sorcinelli, M. D., and LaSere Erickson, B. (2012). Data Review and Follow Up Consultation. (In Brinko, K. (eds) (2012). 2nd Ed., In Practically Speaking: A sourcebook for Instructional Consultants in Higher Education, pp. 81-85). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.

Key takeaways:

• Instructional consultations consist of in-depth analyses designed to provide the faculty with new insight into their pedagogy. The goal is to help them re-tool their classrooms, so that the focus is on learning rather than teaching.
• The consultation should be based on strategies that foster a faculty member's reflection on their own practices, rather than simply getting “teaching tips” from consultants.
• Instructional consultations challenge faculty to adapt their teaching approaches from a comprehensive re-examination of their own teaching practices, such as syllabi design, learning activities implementation, learning assessments, etc.
• Instructional consultation must remain confidential, voluntary and reflection based.
• Formative assessment on teaching and learning are designed for forward assessment, it is developmental, not judgmental, of teaching and learning.
• Classroom observation can take the “ethnographic eyes” to develop lenses for seeing the patterns and practices of teaching and learning within classrooms.

Additional Readings
Click here for supplemental readings about this topic.