Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:43:14.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What Is This Thing Called “Faculty Development”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2015

John King Gamble Jr.*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University

Extract

During the 1980s, there has been an enormous amount of interest in the idea of faculty development. But what exactly does faculty development mean? Is the expression used so often and imprecisely that it loses all meaning? Surely everyone must favor faculty development?

My feeling was that faculty development was something that every good college must do as a matter of enlightened management. I decided to investigate the topic in two ways. First, I read some of the literature (mostly in higher education, but some discipline-based), looking especially at definitions and assumptions about faculty development. Second, I conducted a survey of chairs of departments of political science, suggesting a definition of faculty development and asking about their experiences.

Many articles dealing with faculty development are too broad and fail to define the term. There is also a tendency to equate faculty development with improved teaching (Lacefield, 1983; Moses, 1984). One exception is this:

Faculty development … means all the activities designed to improve faculty performance in all aspects of their professional lives—as teachers, scholars, advisers, academic leaders, and contributors to institutional decisions (Nelsen, 1983, p. 70).

Applying such a broad definition suggests that faculty development occurs constantly at all levels of an institution, which does not take us very far in trying to analyze its effectiveness.

Mosely (1981) suggests three different foci: faculty development; instructional development; and organizational development. Development of a faculty's skills should occur automatically as part of good academic administration. If Penn State provides me with a computer in my office or gives me a research assistant, I will perform better, albeit with slow, incremental improvement. More central to an understanding of faculty development are those cases where faculty achieve a substantial improvement in their performance. In order to assess the nature and incidence of these cases of “substantial improvement,” I surveyed chairs of departments of political science in the U.S. A questionnaire was sent to each institution with at least eight faculty where one individual had been chair for at least five years, presumably long enough to get a perspective on faculty development.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boice, Robert. 1984. Reexamination of Traditional Emphases in Faculty Development. Research in Higher Education, 21:195209.Google Scholar
Chait, Richard, and Gueths, James. 1981. A Framework for Faculty Development. Change, 58:3033.Google Scholar
Deming, Anne. 1984. Personal Effectiveness Groups: A New Approach to Faculty Development. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25:5460.Google Scholar
Lacefield, Warren. 1983. Relationships Between Faculty Evaluations and Faculty Development. Journal of Nursing Education, 22:278284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchesani, Joseph, and Cote, Margaret. 1984. If Two Heads are Better Than One: A Workshop Strategy for Professional Development. The College board Review, 131:2527.Google Scholar
Moseley, Patricia. 1981. A Look at Faculty Development. Improving College and University Teaching, 29:134135.Google Scholar
Moses, Ingrid. 1984. Academic Development Units and the Improvement of Teaching. Higher Education, 14:7599.Google Scholar
Nelsen, William. 1983. Faculty Who Stay: Renewing Our Most Important Resource. In College Faculty: Versatile Human Resources in a Period of Constraint. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
O'Connell, Colman. 1983. College Policies Off-Target in Fostering Faculty Development. Journal of Higher Education, 54:662675.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Lita. 1983. Nurturing an Endangered Species: A Constructive Approach to Faculty Development. Improving College and University Teaching, 3:6568.Google Scholar
Toombs, William. 1983. Faculty Development: The Institutional Side. In College Faculty: Versatile Human Resources in a Period of Constraint. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Weimer, Maryellen. 1987. Translating Evaluation Results into Teaching Improvements. AAHE Bulletin, 39:811.Google Scholar