Presentation at POD 2012 conference of my dissertation research

1. Faculty Development at High Performing
Colleges and Universities
POD Conference Seattle 2012
Barbara Bates, PhD
DeVry University, Denver
bbates@devry.edu
Slides at :
www.slideshare.net./barbbates1947

2. 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?

3. 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?

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. FD “Best Practice”
• Faculty ownership
• Community building
• Support & rewards
for change process.
• Outcome measurements
– variety of sources
– integrated into the
faculty development
program.

7. FD “Best Practice” cont.
• Development activities
– participant
engagement
– learner focus
– address the full range
of faculty roles.
• Alignment of faculty Wells.edu
development goals with • Gibbs, 2003; Hellyer & Boschmann, 1993;
King & Lawler, 2003; Levinsosn-Rose &
institutional mission. Menges, 1981; Rust, 1999; Sorcinelli,
2001.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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%

11. 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%

12. Finding answers…
• Common structures and Qualitative Methods
practices among faculty • Directors Survey Responses
development programs? • Directors’ Interview
• Faculty development at Responses
DEEP schools congruent
with or different from best
practice? Quantitative Methods
• Faculty development • Directors’ interview
perceived impact on response frequencies
teaching? (from faculty • Ranking of director’s
development director’s and response means and
administrator’s viewpoint) comparisons
• Administrators’ survey
response frequencies

13. 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.

14. Qualitative results of phone interview handout
Rank Node (tree hierarchy) of 68 total nodes # of # Refs
respondents 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. FD Assessment strategies for program
(Survey - Percent of participants using (Likert))
• Number of workshop
• Focus groups 50
participants 92
• Program exit surveys to
• Workshop evaluation 83
evaluate experience 50
• Institutional needs
• Periodic interviews 42
assessment 67
• Workshop learning
• Frequency of contact
assessments 33
with faculty 58
• Number of subscribers
• Strategic planning and
to newsletter 17
program reviews 58
• Satisfaction /value
surveys 58

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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)

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. Thank you!
• Questions?
• Conversations
• Please feel free to access my dissertation
http://pqdtopen.proquest.com/
Search: Barbara A. Bates