r evised pod presentation seattle 2012
DESCRIPTION
Summary of dissertation research:TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Faculty Development at High Performing Colleges and Universities
POD Conference Seattle 2012
Barbara Bates, PhD
DeVry University, Denver
Slides at :
www.slideshare.net./barbbates1947
![Page 2: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
My Background
• Taught 4 years at middle school level• Taught 14 years at post-secondary level• Began faculty development 12 years ago
Professional angst…
How do successful colleges and universities promote effective teaching?
![Page 3: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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?
![Page 4: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Theoretical framework
Kuh et al. (2005), Documenting Effective Educational 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.
![Page 6: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
FD “Best Practice”
• Faculty ownership • Community building• Support & rewards for
change process.
• Outcome measurements– variety of sources– integrated into the
faculty development program.
![Page 7: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
FD “Best Practice” cont.
• Development activities– participant
engagement– learner focus – address the full range
of faculty roles. • Alignment of faculty
development goals with institutional mission.
Wells.edu
• Gibbs, 2003; Hellyer & Boschmann, 1993; King & Lawler, 2003; Levinsosn-Rose & Menges, 1981; Rust, 1999; Sorcinelli, 2001.
![Page 8: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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
![Page 9: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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
![Page 10: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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%
![Page 11: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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%
![Page 12: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Finding answers…• Common structures and
practices among faculty development programs?
• Faculty development at DEEP schools congruent with or different from best practice?
• Faculty development perceived impact on teaching? (from faculty development director’s and administrator’s viewpoint)
Qualitative Methods • Directors Survey Responses • Directors’ Interview
Responses
Quantitative Methods • Directors’ interview
response frequencies• Ranking of director’s
response means and comparisons
• Administrators’ survey response frequencies
![Page 13: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Major findings• Practices and structures congruent with most FD best practices
Differences:
1. More frequent and more extensive assessment compared to Non-DEEP schools
2. 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.
![Page 14: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Qualitative results of phone interview handoutRank Node (tree hierarchy) of 68 total nodes # of
respondents# Refs 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
![Page 15: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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
![Page 16: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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. I'm 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 it's sort of a horizontal academic culture . .. I think we create opportunities to learn together about what we care about as teachers.” Midwest Women's College
![Page 17: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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
![Page 18: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FD Assessment strategies for program(Survey - Percent of participants using (Likert))• Number of workshop
participants 92• Workshop evaluation 83• Institutional needs
assessment 67• Frequency of contact
with faculty 58• Strategic planning and
program reviews 58• Satisfaction /value
surveys 58
• Focus groups 50• Program exit surveys to
evaluate experience 50• Periodic interviews 42• Workshop learning
assessments 33• Number of subscribers
to newsletter 17
![Page 20: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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)
![Page 21: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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 67
Activities• Planned in collaboration with faculty 100• Peer collaboration in activity 92
![Page 22: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Major findings cont.• Practices and structures congruent with most FD best practices
Differences:
1. More frequent and more extensive assessment compared to Non-DEEP schools
2. 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.
![Page 23: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Strong relationship between FD and faculty
"Student success has grown out of our faculty's 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
![Page 24: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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 I've 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 we're doing . . . I have support from the president on down for the work that the center does.” Western Catholic
![Page 25: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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.
![Page 26: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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.
![Page 27: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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)
![Page 28: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
• Use assessment feedback to guide changes in FD programming and structures.
![Page 29: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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.
![Page 30: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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.
![Page 31: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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.
![Page 32: R evised pod presentation seattle 2012](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022070319/55853e2bd8b42a5e018b4ac6/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Thank you!
• Questions?• Conversations• Please feel free to access my dissertation
http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/
Search: Barbara A. Bates