Rethinking faculty development
LD Camblin Jr, JA Steger - Higher education, 2000 - Springer
LD Camblin Jr, JA Steger
Higher education, 2000•SpringerFaculty development is designed to forestall facultyobsolescence, but determining how to
provide for thedevelopmental needs of a diverse faculty isproblematic. At the University of
Cincinnati aFaculty Development Program was organized aroundcompetitive proposals and
university institutes. The developmental grant proposals were for individualfaculty, groups of
faculty, and departments and alsoprovided funds for institutes for collaborative groupsof
faculty who had shared developmental needs andgoals. More than 800 faculty members …
provide for thedevelopmental needs of a diverse faculty isproblematic. At the University of
Cincinnati aFaculty Development Program was organized aroundcompetitive proposals and
university institutes. The developmental grant proposals were for individualfaculty, groups of
faculty, and departments and alsoprovided funds for institutes for collaborative groupsof
faculty who had shared developmental needs andgoals. More than 800 faculty members …
Abstract
Faculty development is designed to forestall facultyobsolescence, but determining how to provide for thedevelopmental needs of a diverse faculty isproblematic. At the University of Cincinnati aFaculty Development Program was organized aroundcompetitive proposals and university institutes.
The developmental grant proposals were for individualfaculty, groups of faculty, and departments and alsoprovided funds for institutes for collaborative groupsof faculty who had shared developmental needs andgoals. More than 800 faculty members (42% of thetotal faculty) applied for these funds over athree-year period. Nearly 400 faculty were funded.
The question remaining, following this initial cycle,was ``Did this support for faculty development make asignificant difference in the way learning,scholarship, and research was conducted?'' To betterascertain the extent of the project's influence on theinstitution, a survey was distributed to all 1,925faculty at the university -- regardless of whether ornot they received support. The returns of the surveywere sufficient to allow for an analysis.
The results held both anticipated results (e.g.,upgraded skills and increased use of technology) andunexpected results (e.g., cooperation among facultyfrom diverse disciplines and multiplier effects onscope and nature of the projects). The results of thesurvey, regarding the Faculty Development Program'simpact, clearly show that it has changed the wayinterdisciplinary faculty collaborate and it hassignificantly facilitated the ability of faculty toaddress specific developmental needs.
Springer