This study investigated the effectiveness of a two-year faculty development program designed to assist faculty in making transition from a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach to instruction at a private university in China. One hundred full-time faculty participated in the program and ultimately 52 participants who attended entire two-year workshops were involved in the research. Seven point Likert Scale survey including open-ended questions as well as live classroom observation techniques were used to examine how the participants perceived the faculty program, whether they made improvement of their learning of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and whether the participants used what they learned after the completion of the program. The findings from this study indicated that the most of majority participants (93%) had significant positive reactions to the faculty development program; they made great improvement in their learning of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (t statistic is -6.163; p value is far small than 0.05); participants started using student-centered behaviors they learned in their teaching practice after completion of the program. The unintended outcomes regarding program improvement were also found through open-ended questionnaire in this study. The results inferred that trainer's ability strongly contributed to the high degree of overall evaluation of the program. A follow-up and longitudinal research is needed to track the impact on the organization and the impact on students' learning achievement over time. More types of university contexts including both private and public universities need to be addressed for future research. / School of Education; / Instructional Technology (EdDIT) / EdD; / Dissertation;

This dissertation presents an essential faculty development program framework for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities for introducing, enhancing, and improving faculty development programs. In this study, the Delphi method was used to gain consensus from the study experts on essential and model faculty development programs, key goals and biggest challenges for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities. This study included two major phases: (1) creation of the original survey instrument, and (2) conducting the surveys with the identified experts. The first phase utilized three experts in the field of faculty development to validate the questionnaire instrument. The second phase was completed by a panel of 15 experts representing 14 states and was conducted in four iterations. The study answered five research questions: (1) What are essential faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (2) What are model faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (3) What programs will be essential for faculty development in the future as forecasted by faculty professional development experts on the Delphi panel? (4) What should be the key goals for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? (5) What are the biggest challenges for teaching and learning centers as reported by directors in selected research extensive universities? This dissertation study identified 18 currently essential faculty development programs and 28 future essential faculty development programs for teaching and learning centers in research extensive universities. Additionally, the Delphi panel members provided descriptions of model programs for identified essential faculty development programs that are considered as successful best practices to faculty development. The Delphi panel also provided insights into key goals and key challenges for teaching and learning centers that can be used by directors to plan essential faculty development programs. This dissertation is significant because the results are expected to serve as a means for evaluating existing faculty development programming and guiding the planning of new faculty development programs to enhance teaching and learning on research extensive university campuses.

No description available.

If nurse educators do not teach students to function in interprofessional teams, students may lack communication and teamwork skills, which can result in patient harm; however, nurse educators do not always understand the concept of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and may, therefore, fail to teach it to students. The purpose of this multiple case study was to understand how undergraduate nurse educators prepared to teach IPC and how their preparation informed their teaching. The theory of transformative learning and the Interprofessional Education Collaborative core competencies of IPC framed this study. Data included semistructured interviews and associated documents from 9 nurse educators representing 3 different schools of nursing. Transcribed interviews and associated documents were coded for emergent themes. The 5 key themes that emerged related to nurse educator preparation to teach IPC were academic IPC preparation was limited, lack of formal preparation and an incomplete understanding, interprofessional communication: positive perceptions and perceived barriers, previous IPC exposure influenced instruction, and educators taught IPC informally. The results of this study may influence positive social change by inspiring educational leaders to consider the possibility that nurse educators may need IPC-specific faculty development. Research suggests that when educators know how to teach IPC, they can prepare students to practice in interprofessional teams. Most importantly, when new nurses know how to work in interprofessional teams, this may result in a decrease in the incidence of unintentional patient injuries.

This qualitative study inquired into the personal experience of three engineering professors and one associate dean who participated in an engineering education coalition—the Foundation Coalition—a National Science Foundation-funded project which attempted to reform undergraduate engineering curricula at six U.S. institutions of higher education. Through analysis of occupational life histories, and data from a larger study of curricular change processes, two dominant social narratives emerged. Cultural attributes of academia were conceptualized as a master narrative. The reform effort emerged as a counter-narrative by calling for a “culture change” in engineering education. I describe five areas where the counter-narrative challenged the master narrative: the rationale and need for educational change, the nature of faculty work, disciplinary relationships, relationships among faculty, and the incentive and reward system. The counter-narrative of reform promoted curricular and pedagogical change, more interdisciplinary and integrated foundations for engineering education, and encouraged partnerships and community over faculty isolation and autonomy. The counter-narrative challenged faculty complicity with the master narrative and offered alternative ways of viewing their role as faculty in higher education. The master and counter-narratives clashed over the nature of faculty work in research universities, fueling the ongoing debate about the relative value of research and teaching and the associated reward system. This study found that the four participants used different strategies to navigate the conflict between the two social narratives. One participant was informed by an ideal vision of engineering education, and never relinquished the quest for an opportunity to realize that vision. Another professor, energized by the collaborative environment created by the Coalition, continued to find creative avenues to partner with others to improve engineering education. A third participant worked, through compromise and accommodation, to craft an improved curriculum that worked within the local institutional culture. And finally, an associate dean, who rejected the duality of the master/counter-narrative worldview, reframed the reform effort by encouraging faculty working in educational change to view their work as scholarship. The findings from this study support faculty engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and encourage faculty developers to find ways of supporting faculty in that effort.

This study measured the current characteristics of faculty development in public two-year colleges in Texas. Current characteristics were determined by an electronic questionnaire completed by the responding staff or faculty member designated by each Texas two-year college as the person most responsible for faculty development. In the case when faculty development responsibility was divided by technical and academic faculty, both designees at the college were sent electronic questionnaires. Of the 78 colleges, 6 colleges, or 8 percent, divided faculty development responsibilities between two individuals at the college. Those six identified colleges were sent two questionnaires each for the two selected representatives. Of those 6 colleges, 4 responded or 67 per cent. Overall, of the 78 colleges sent electronic questionnaires, 57 responded, yielding a 73 percent return. The major results of the study indicate: 1. The majority of colleges studied do not designate a faculty development space at the college.2. A large percentage of two-year public colleges in Texas, 49.2 percent of the total respondents, had no staff member responsible for faculty development who spent more than 51 percent of the time on faculty development duties. 3. Two-year public colleges budget relatively few funds for faculty development. 4. Of all respondents 42.6 percent report that they did not perform a needs assessment. 5. Most Texas two-year public colleges, 92.7 percent of respondents, claimed that their colleges evaluated faculty development activities. However, almost 25 percent of those respondents did not use an evaluation instrument. Of those respondents using an instrument, the most selected area of measurement was participant satisfaction. Performance outcomes measure was the least selected category at 5.8 percent.

This qualitative study inquired into the personal experience of three engineering professors and one associate dean who participated in an engineering education coalition—the Foundation Coalition—a National Science Foundation-funded project which attempted to reform undergraduate engineering curricula at six U.S. institutions of higher education. Through analysis of occupational life histories, and data from a larger study of curricular change processes, two dominant social narratives emerged. Cultural attributes of academia were conceptualized as a master narrative. The reform effort emerged as a counter-narrative by calling for a “culture change” in engineering education. I describe five areas where the counter-narrative challenged the master narrative: the rationale and need for educational change, the nature of faculty work, disciplinary relationships, relationships among faculty, and the incentive and reward system. The counter-narrative of reform promoted curricular and pedagogical change, more interdisciplinary and integrated foundations for engineering education, and encouraged partnerships and community over faculty isolation and autonomy. The counter-narrative challenged faculty complicity with the master narrative and offered alternative ways of viewing their role as faculty in higher education. The master and counter-narratives clashed over the nature of faculty work in research universities, fueling the ongoing debate about the relative value of research and teaching and the associated reward system. This study found that the four participants used different strategies to navigate the conflict between the two social narratives. One participant was informed by an ideal vision of engineering education, and never relinquished the quest for an opportunity to realize that vision. Another professor, energized by the collaborative environment created by the Coalition, continued to find creative avenues to partner with others to improve engineering education. A third participant worked, through compromise and accommodation, to craft an improved curriculum that worked within the local institutional culture. And finally, an associate dean, who rejected the duality of the master/counter-narrative worldview, reframed the reform effort by encouraging faculty working in educational change to view their work as scholarship. The findings from this study support faculty engagement in the scholarship of teaching and learning and encourage faculty developers to find ways of supporting faculty in that effort.

The increasing demand for online and hybrid courses necessitates a corresponding increase in the number of higher education faculty members who offer instruction in these alternative delivery environments. Faculty members may resist course redesign due to concerns about increased workload and technology and require extrinsic motivation in the form of financial compensation and pedagogical and technological support as well as intrinsic motivation in the form of informal peer recognition, and intellectual satisfaction. Online courses offer temporal flexibility and multiple transactional axes but may superficially appear to devalue interaction. The apparent deindividuation of computer-mediated communication may be overcome by group socialization in collaborative communities which are focused on authentic problems. This report proposes a design-based research approach to determine the impact from an online collaborative community on the number of online course offerings and whether or not a professional development workshop that models interaction for participants will have a corresponding impact on the degree of interactivity incorporated in the respective courses of those faculty members. The proposal outlines the creation of a workshop offered in a hybrid delivery mode which through iterative instructional design interventions may lead to the development of a community of passionate instructors who collaborate to solve the technical and pedagogical challenges of their respective content disciplines and thereby meet the demand for online course offerings. / text

No description available.

Abstract available through the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine.