Hi, Jim
Thanks for having shared this interesting posting.
The last paragraph seems to echo or reinforce statements you've made during
the past several years.

With regard to who "owns" faculty development, I think that whoever has the
ability to SUPPORT such development certainly has the primary ownership
position.  Our school has a good history, it seems to me, of faculty
development, but we all apply for such support from a person or entity who
either grants that support or denies it.  It would be helpful to know the
faculty development goals of those who are in a position to grant support
for faculty development.

Jim's posting suggests to me that the College Senate might wish to become
more directly involved in issues of faculty development.  Such development
is surely related to the Senate's interest in curriculum.

Again - thanks, Jim
Janet




Dr. J. Nepkie
Professor of Music and Music Industry
Music Department
State University of New York
College at Oneonta
Oneonta,  N.Y. 13820-4015
Phone (607) 436 3425
Fax    607  436 2718



> From: Jim Greenberg <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 08:12:08 -0500
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: FW: TP Msg. #686 FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
> 
> Tbers, 
> 
> 
> HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE!
> 
> The posting below looks at some of the important
> issues in faculty development at colleges and
> universities.  It is from Chapter 6, Future
> Directions for Faculty Development: Open-Ended
> Responses  - The Future of the Field in, Creating
> the Future of Faculty Development, Learning From
> the Past, Understanding the Present, by  Mary
> Deane Sorcinelli, Ann E. Austin, Pamela L. Eddy
> and Andrea L. Beach. Copyright © 2006 by Anker
> Publishing Company, Inc. Bolton, Massachusetts.
> All rights reserved. ISBN 1-882982-87-8 Anker
> Publishing Company, Inc. 176 Ballville Road P.O.
> Box 249 Bolton, MA 1-882982-14-2.
> [www.ankerpub.com] Reprinted with permission.
> 
> Amazon reference (copy/paste into browser):
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1882982878/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-6844509-61167
> 47?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&no=283155&st=books&n=283155
> 
> 
>   FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT
> 
> 
>  Chapter 6 - Future Directions for Faculty
> Development: Open-Ended Responses
> 
>           The Future of the Field
> 
> For approximately 30 years, the Professional and
> Organizational Network in Higher Education (POD
> Network) has advocated for the ongoing
> enhancement of teaching and learning through
> faculty development. In 2003 the POD Network
> crafted a vision statement for the 21st century
> that charges the organization to "expand
> guidelines for educational development, build
> strong alliances with sister organizations, and
> encourage developer exchanges and research
> projects to improve teaching and learning" (Core
> Committee, April 2003). In the open-ended
> comments of our study, developers offered a
> number of insights on what should and what will
> be the vision for the future of the field of
> faculty development. Their comments elaborate and
> expand on the vision of the POD Network.
> 
> Developers' visions about the future of the field
> coalesced around three key areas. Many called for
> more emphasis on organizational development and
> change. They believe that developers should take
> a stronger leadership role within higher
> education institutions, becoming involved in
> governance structures, aligning their centers
> with institutional priorities, engaging in
> discussions of rewards structures, and working
> with academic leaders. There was also a sense
> among developers that faculty development should
> work to gain more respect and credibility as a
> field or discipline of study. Credibility and
> respect were linked to the field's ability to
> articulate a body of scholarly knowledge,
> standards, and core competencies that defines it,
> and to build on the research base already laid
> for the scholarship of teaching.
> 
> There was some commentary on the merits of
> restructuring faculty development-by making it
> more central and valued, by diversifying
> development offerings and efforts, or by
> integrating faculty development into departments
> or interdisciplinary groups. Some developers
> expressed the view that faculty development
> should be spread throughout institutions and that
> departments and individuals could take up faculty
> development themselves. Others argued that the
> field should proactively network with external
> organizations-accreditation bodies and other
> higher education associations, such as the
> Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
> Teaching and Learning and the American
> Association for Higher Education.
> 
> Developers also believe that the field of faculty
> development and its place in higher education
> institutions will gain credibility and respect in
> the coming years, although there is also a sense
> that funding issues will be important. Many
> faculty expressed the belief that centers and
> programs within institutions would need to fund
> their own efforts from external sources, while
> others believed that internal funding would come
> with the increased stature of faculty development
> within colleges and universities.
> 
> Also evident in the open-ended responses were two
> competing positions regarding who owns faculty
> development. One position (expressed most often
> by liberal arts and comprehensive university
> respondents) was that faculty should own their
> own development. A number of respondents at
> liberal arts colleges expressed a vision of
> faculty development planned and decided by the
> faculty themselves-that faculty development
> without faculty input was not faculty
> development. Similarly, many respondents at
> comprehensive institutions saw their role as
> serving faculty rather than administrative
> interests and needs.
> 
> The other position was that institutional
> administrations own faculty development, for
> better to worse. Some respondents argued that
> faculty development should be more aligned with
> and responsive to the critical needs of the
> institution, needs often defined by the campus
> administration. Many noted faculty development
> must work to be more legitimate, central, and
> respected part of the institution. But the
> drawback to such alignments also emerged,
> especially in concerns about being pushed into an
> overemphasis on technology without careful
> consideration of issues such as course content
> and student and faculty readiness. Responses to
> earlier survey questions regarding who
> establishes the priorities for faculty
> development support this sense that the faculty
> development agenda is set, in part, by the
> priorities perceived by senior-level
> administrators. Some respondents were somewhat
> negative or resigned about this situation. Others
> were more positive in their view that the
> strongest faculty development programs were those
> that responded to the needs of both faculty and
> institutional leaders in setting agendas for
> development.
> 
> Developers also grappled with the issue of who
> they think belongs in faculty development.
> Comments about who faculty developers should be
> and how they should (or should not) be trained or
> prepared for their profession pointed to a
> tension between a perceived need to
> professionalize the field and a concern that
> doing so will diminish it.
> 
> Numerous developers saw the need for faculty
> development to be more discipline-like, with a
> defined body of scholarly knowledge, core
> competencies, skills, and practices. Some desired
> more formal pathways into the profession, such as
> specific graduate training and continuing
> professional education. Many also felt the need
> for the field to engage in more research about
> best practices that influence student learning,
> and to work programmatically from a research base
> on teaching and learning. In contrast, some
> developers were adamant that pushing for creation
> of a disciplinary field of faculty development
> would be as one developer argued, "the kiss of
> death" to the enterprise, gutting it of its
> unique perspective in favor of "methods." Another
> argued that the field should retain its "big
> tent" approach, with multiple paths into the
> profession.
> 
> In conclusion, respondents expressed a range of
> visions for the future of faculty development-the
> issues they saw as important to address were by
> no means focused exclusively on issues of
> teaching and learning, although those issues
> remained primary concerns. They saw the need to
> address other issues faculty face as they
> confront expanding roles, competing
> responsibilities, and the demand for new skills.
> Faculty developers, especially directors of
> centers at larger institutions, called for
> faculty development to take a more prominent role
> in institutional development and strategic
> change, and to raise the credibility, importance,
> and centrality of faculty development in their
> institutions among both administrators and
> faculty.
> 
> The most striking theme to emerge from the
> open-ended responses was the desire for more
> connection between where participants wished to
> see faculty development move and where they saw
> it moving, with or without their control.
> Respondents were deeply concerned about what they
> saw as an over-reliance on technology as the
> teaching and learning "fix" that everyone must
> use, and their role as technology consultants to
> faculty subsuming all other roles and issues they
> see as important to address. They also worried
> about increasing pressure on the field to be part
> of the assessment movement and various evaluation
> processes such as accreditation reviews and
> post-tenure review.
> 
> Perhaps most interesting was developers' sense
> that they need to find better ways to manage or
> direct these shifts in focus in the future. They
> are concerned about how they will address both
> the perceived needs of senior administrators and
> the expressed needs of faculty. And many also
> want a voice in creating their own framework for
> understanding the role of faculty development in
> the future-what it is, why it is important, who
> the key players will be, what future developments
> to expect, and how to chart a course for that
> future.