Faculty Development Program Models to Advance Teaching and Learning Within Health Science Programs

Abstract

Within health science programs there has been a call for more faculty development, particularly for teaching and learning. The primary objectives of this review were to describe the current landscape for faculty development programs for teaching and learning and make recommendations for the implementation of new faculty development programs. A thorough search of the pertinent health science databases was conducted, including the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC), MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and faculty development books and relevant information found were reviewed in order to provide recommendations for best practices. Faculty development for teaching and learning comes in a variety of forms, from individuals charged to initiate activities to committees and centers. Faculty development has been effective in improving faculty perceptions on the value of teaching, increasing motivation and enthusiasm for teaching, increasing knowledge and behaviors, and disseminating skills. Several models exist that can be implemented to support faculty teaching development. Institutions need to make informed decisions about which plan could be most successfully implemented in their college or school.

INTRODUCTION

Leaders in higher education have issued a call to increase and improve faculty development across all levels of faculty experience, especially in the area of teaching and learning.¹ In light of the growth in academic pharmacy over the past 15 years, there are increasing numbers of pharmacy faculty members who must be prepared to train students in skills such as critical thinking and problem solving; working in teams and collaborating; communicating with others; and finding and analyzing information.² Working with students to develop these skills requires a different teaching approach and is a paradigm shift for many faculty members. Faculty teaching development programs coach faculty members through this learning process and can be part of a comprehensive professional development plan.

Boyce describes a framework for a faculty development program that includes support for faculty improvement in and assessment of teaching.³ Guglielo and colleagues recommended that faculty members and administrators within colleges and schools of pharmacy share responsibility for creating a comprehensive faculty development plan that would include development of teaching skills.⁴ They found that little has been published on comprehensive faculty development plans that are outcome-oriented, and that there is a lack of teaching development for faculty members. These findings provided additional foundational support for our premise that faculty development programs are needed to support faculty success in teaching.

The potential outcomes for ineffective or minimally effective teaching include: poor student learning, high faculty turnover, and ineffective graduates. As such, it is important to identify effective strategies that support the development of excellent teachers.^5-9 The objectives of this review were to describe the current landscape for faculty development related to teaching effectiveness and to make recommendations for the creation of, or enhancement to, faculty teaching development programs in health sciences education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Pertinent English-language articles indexed in ERIC (Education Resource Information Center), EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from 1998 through September 2013 were searched. In addition, the reference lists of identified publications and published textbooks were reviewed. Search terms included: effective teaching programs, health sciences education, faculty development, faculty orientation, faculty retention, mentorship, and models. Inclusion criteria for research articles were any published work that: (1) evaluated 1 or more structured faculty development methodology; (2) quantitatively reported their findings; and (3) was undertaken within an academic setting.

The initial search identified 32 published articles. Of these, 9 met all inclusion criteria and are summarized in Appendix 1. The reasons for excluding the remaining 23 articles were: a lack of quantitative findings (15); a lack of structured faculty development programming (6); and completion outside of an academic setting (2). Six published books on faculty development also were identified; however, these were only used to aid in providing descriptions of the various methods for faculty development. From the included publications, 3 primary models of faculty development were identified: centers, committees, and communities.

Faculty development centers are traditionally larger and more centralized entities that are maintained with oversight from a chief academic officer. They are charged with designing and implementing developmental program activities that support the academic goals of the institution.^1-5 Often the leadership for the center is made up of dedicated, full-time administrative faculty and/or staff members, but may also consist of local faculty members selected on the basis of their expertise, leadership skills, or personal interests.^1-5 Faculty development centers typically have an advisory committee to help maintain contact with the faculty at large.

Faculty development committees may exist in conjunction with a center to serve in an advisory role but more often exist as a standalone committee.^1-3,6,7 These committees include multiple faculty members and can operate at departmental/division level, college or school level, or encompass larger bodies (eg, multiple colleges or schools within a health science campus).^1-3,6,7

Faculty learning communities have been described as groups of 8 to 12 faculty, trainees and professional staff members engaging in an active, collaborative program.^1-3,8-10 These programs involve scheduled meetings (eg, once a month for 2 to 3 hours) centered on enhancing teaching and learning, with frequent seminars and activities that provide learning, development, and community building.^1-3,8-10

Programs to advance teaching and learning range from a one-time enterprise (eg, a retreat) to regularly scheduled workshops or seminars, to highly competitive, application-driven, multi-month fellowship or scholar programs. This broad range of program types makes determining whether faculty development is effective complicated. In one review, medical faculty teaching development programs appeared to have beneficial effects as measured by participants’ self-evaluation of teaching ability, knowledge of effective teaching methods, and teaching evaluations.⁹ Finelli and colleagues used focused instructional consultations and demonstrated improvements in student ratings and changes in teaching practice.² Student ratings focused on perceived increases in active learning, delivery of prompt feedback, clarity of lecture materials. Also, faculty reported increases in their perception of competence and confidence related to lecture-based teaching. In addition to providing high-quality instruction, standardized, objective teaching awards were found to be powerful in establishing formal recognition of the scholarship of teaching.

One study examined the long-term effectiveness of a 1-year teaching training program on 20 faculty members with less than 5 years of experience. The results indicated lasting benefits 2 years after completion of the sessions.¹⁰ Research on teaching scholars programs in medical education showed corresponding successful outcomes: increased enthusiasm for teaching; increased educational research; and increased publication and presentation of educational scholarship.¹¹

BEST PRACTICES FOR FACULTY TEACHING DEVELOPMENT

Faculty teaching development programs vary in structure and function and there are several options to consider. The most appropriate option will depend on key situational factors: financial support, human resources (eg, staff support, faculty time), campus resources (eg, other faculty development programs within the institution, internal grants), and local expertise (eg, faculty or staff members with interest or relevant background). Because faculty teaching development efforts are contextual, there is no best, one-size-fits-all model: all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Based on the available literature, there are several principles that lead to successful faculty development.¹⁴ The first questions to consider include identifying the area(s) for faculty development (eg, teaching and learning, educational leadership, scholarship of teaching and learning) and identifying the target audience(s) (eg, junior faculty members, all faculty levels, preceptors). The next step is determining how success will be measured. The impact of a faculty development program should be measured by a thorough and focused assessment plan. Some of the measures used to assess faculty development in terms of teaching and learning include but are not limited to: number of individual consultations, number of courses changed, number of activities initiated, changes in course evaluations, changes in peer evaluations of teaching, number of scholarly articles and presentations focused on one or more aspects of faculty effectiveness, and number of promotions based on teaching. Ideally, assessment is multifaceted and these elements need to be agreed upon early in the process of developing a program. In a review of teaching and learning centers, 3 general areas were assessed: satisfaction (eg, participation data, surveys); impact on teaching (eg, student evaluations, syllabus analysis, follow-up observation, focus groups), and impact on learning (eg, student retention, grade point averages, products of student learning).¹⁵

The next key point is identifying the individuals who will lead or take part in the faculty teaching development. Decisions need to be made regarding staff, faculty, and administrative contributions including time, effort, and scope of responsibility. Without sufficient effort, a faculty teaching development program is not likely to be effective or sustainable.

The last key principle is identifying the institution’s biggest assets and challenges. The faculty teaching development program should lead with its strengths and these strengths need to be identified a priori. For example, is there a university or campus center that can offer services and support and are there interested faculty members with the expertise to facilitate the process. These issues are congruent with the biggest challenges to creating effective faculty teaching development. Lastly, questions need to be addressed regarding faculty and administrative support, finances, physical space, recognition systems for faculty participation, and timeframe for changes. Based on some of these sustaining principles, Gillespie and colleagues recommend 10 steps to be considered when building a faculty development program (Table 1).¹²

Table 1.

Ten Steps for Building a Successful Faculty Development Program

Once a format has been agreed upon and developed, there are a variety of topics that faculty teaching development can address. Table 2 identifies potential topics. The format for delivering these topics also can vary in format. The Professional and Organizational Development Network for Higher Education (http://podnetwork.org/), is one resource to facilitate the development of topics, formats, and faculty developers.

Table 2.

Topics to Be Addressed in a Faculty Development Effort That Emphasizes Teaching, Learning, and Assessment

CENTERS BEST PRACTICE

Most centers are found on the university level and provide opportunities for interprofessional interaction; there are few institution- or health science-based faculty development centers and even fewer centers are based in a college or school of pharmacy.^3,4 Most centers are supported financially by having a dedicated budget, however, some are grant-supplemented. For example, Minnesota State Colleges and Universities’ Center for Teaching and Learning was established in 1999 after receipt of a $1.6 million grant, and maintained by annual contributions totaling $200,000 from the Office of the Chancellor.⁵ However, external grants have shrunk, increasing the need to identify sustainable areas of funding to ensure continuance of such centers.

University-based centers can offer a variety of programs, engaging large numbers of faculty members from varied backgrounds, and foster a cohesive sense of learning across an institution, or multiple institutions; this may or may not be the case for more localized centers housed within a college or school of pharmacy. Centers may offer grants (eg, for travel, scholarship, innovative educational initiatives); skill-building workshops, retreats, communication tools (eg, blogs, flyers, newsletters), books and articles; assistance in collaborative reviews of teaching; recognizing effective instructors (ie, teaching awards); and individual consultation. This last element, individual consultation, has been recognized as one of the most effective faculty development practices.¹

There are several advantages of an institution establishing a center as its approach to faculty development. Centers can, potentially, provide a wide range of services, opportunities, and resources. While most university centers are interprofessional, and can be sustained through grants, dedicated funding lines, or even revenue-generating enterprises, college- or school-based centers may have more limited funding sources or options. Centers are not without their limitations, as they can be too broad or far-reaching, thus losing individual applicability for faculty members in various settings. This can even be true if the center is located within a college or school.

Faculty Development Committees

As previously mentioned, FDCs may exist in conjunction with a center in an advisory role, or as is more often the case, as a standalone entity.⁶ These committees may operate at departmental/division level, college or school level, or within larger bodies (eg, health science centers). The committee is typically charged by the administration to promote a positive change for teaching and learning. Davis and colleagues recommend that these committees be a permanent source of development and be incorporated within the institutional structure.⁷ These committees may allocate funds and steer faculty development activities, requiring administrative support and faculty ownership to ensure the highest chance of success. In addition, committees should be comprised of interested faculty members who must be proactive and committed to the enhancement and success of faculty development programs.⁷ Committees require clear goals and objectives with focused agendas, operate with an established length of membership for consistency, and use subcommittees to investigate and report on activities.

FDCs, at least during their outset, may have a limited number of individuals who oversee the entire faculty development program for a college or school.⁶ These individuals may be administrators responsible for faculty matters or faculty members responsible for development activities. As with the other structures, these individuals must rely on the cooperation of peers to do the actual work.

A committee approach can be advantageous as committees may be more responsive and attend to faculty members’ needs. Committees promote active participation from faculty members in the design and development phases and in the delivery of programming. Finally, FDCs typically have a significant level of support because the committee is initiated by administration.

The primary disadvantages of FDCs are similar to those of any faculty development program: lack of resources, structure, or oversight. Like centers, committees also can be threatened by sustainability. The impact, quality, and quantity of programmatic offerings are influenced by the committee’s inertia and focus and faculty members’ interest and perceived benefit.

Faculty Learning Community

The faculty learning community serves as a place for faculty members to share new pedagogical approaches and discuss logistics (eg, managing courses with large student enrollment). Additionally, FLCs usually have a scholarly component, which contributes to the institution (eg, guidelines, white paper, programmatic assessment).^8-10 A participant in an FLC may select a course or project to try out innovations, assess resulting student learning, and prepare a report to show the results. FLCs increase faculty member interest in teaching and learning and provide a safe, positive environment for faculty members to investigate, attempt, assess, and adopt new methods.

There are generally 2 types of FLCs reported in the literature: cohort-based or topic-based. Cohort-based learning communities address the teaching, learning, and developmental needs of faculty and staff members who have been particularly affected by isolation or stress within the academy. ^8-10 Topic-based communities design a curriculum to address a special teaching and learning need or opportunity, and focus on a specific theme. In general, FLCs are more structured, intensive, and longitudinal than other approaches in which faculty members meet and work on teaching and learning issues (eg, teaching circles, journal clubs, seminars, committees).

The advantages of FLCs can be numerous. FLCs often result in scholarly work that can help individuals or the institution. These communities can build lasting relationships and broad community support. Finally, topics of the FLCS can address a diversity of interests (eg, scholarship of teaching, teaching large classes).

The disadvantages of an FLC can be the time commitment (eg, 2 to 3 hours once a month for a year) and costs associated with this model; this latter factor is typically associated with sharing meals as part of the community-building process. Costs also might be accrued if the FLC’s members present their research locally or nationally. Faculty learning communities require a chair or co-chair for leadership to ensure goals are set and met, such as coordinating logistics to keep team members meeting regularly.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty teaching development programs are beneficial as has been measured through surveys and student evaluations. Programs increase faculty members’ value of teaching, rekindle their motivation and enthusiasm, and improve their knowledge, behaviors, and dissemination of skills.¹⁶ Faculty development programs that support teaching improvement, effectiveness, and competency are needed for individuals teaching in colleges and schools of pharmacy because excellent teachers are needed in order to prepare future pharmacists to advance the practice and become essential members of the health care team who practice at the top of their license. Several faculty development models can be implemented to support teaching development and there is evidence that faculty development in this arena is effective. After a careful analysis of the benefits and costs associated with the models, faculty members can make informed decisions about which faculty teaching development plan would be most appropriately and successfully implemented at their institution. More research is necessary to maximize the outcomes of faculty development programs.

Appendix 1.

Summary of Studies on Faculty Development With Respect to Advancing Teaching and Learning