"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind." Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, Transcendental Logic, Introduction, # 1 Dr. Achim D. Koeddermann Associate Prof. of Philosophy SUNY-Oneonta, NY 13820 "Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind"
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.