|
by Terrence Doyle
and Henryk Marcinkiewicz
Journal of Faculty Development
Although many
colleges and universities have formal faculty orientation/development programs,
Ferris State University has initiated an intensive, year-long New Faculty
Transition Program that may well be unique in higher education. The Center for
Teaching, Learning, & Faculty Development created the program with support from
the University administration. Incoming faculty members meet every two weeks
during the Fall and Winter semesters and attend an academic retreat as well.
Evaluations indicate that the program is very successful, and we feel that it
could be replicated on other campuses.
The number of
faculty development centers has been increasing dramatically over the last two
decades, but this growth has not been accompanied by an expansion of training
programs for new faculty. Although many institutions sponsor "orientations" for
incoming faculty, these programs tend to be very brief, often no more than a
single day of instruction, just before the beginning of the school year (Fink
1984; Renegar, Summary, Bonwell, & Eison, 1988; Eison, 1989; Eison & Hamner
Hill, 1990). Intensive training programs are not widespread, although a few
institutions provided training for a single semester (a model that we followed
initially at Ferris State).
The basic
rationale for the Transition Program is simply that a faculty member's first
year should not be a "trial by fire" but instead should be an "apprenticeship,"
and apprenticeships require lengthy training. This approach reduces the stress
of unrealistic expectations among new faculty, especially those with little or
no training in teaching. Participants gradually begin to see their "freshman
year" as an opportunity to learn. During the course of the year, participants
experimented in their classes, using methods gleaned from the training
sessions.
Other
practical reasons for the program's yearlong timetable are related to the nature
of the student body. Half of the students at Ferris are enrolled in technical
areas, seeking applied degrees, and many students are in need of academic
assistance in order to be successful. These students can present a formidable
challenge to incoming faculty, since many faculty are drawn from industry,
business, or professional fields and have little teaching experience. Other new
faculty are freshly-minted Ph. D.'s who have not experienced academically
at-risk students. To teach this population of students, instructors must have a
sound understanding of developmental learning theories and master a wide variety
of teaching approaches and strategies.
Another
rationale for the program is to build a learning community among the new
faculty. Hence, it shares many of the structures, logistics, and goals of the
learning communities conducted by Milton Cox at the Office for the Advancement
of Scholarship and Teaching at Miami University-Ohio.
A number of
benefits accrue from conducting a long-term training program for incoming
faculty. These goals are explained more fully below.
Student
Learning and Teaching
An inherent
value in the training program is the improvement in student learning when
faculty implement proven teaching techniques they learn about in the training
sessions. Incoming faculty learn about the best practices in test writing,
lecturing and presentation techniques, facilitating classroom discussion,
learner assessment techniques, and classroom management strategies. Faculty
members are also trained in student advising. Student advising is a contractual
obligation for faculty and has a high priority among the administration at
Ferris
Common
Understanding of the University's Mission
The New
Faculty Transition program aims to develop cohesiveness and a common vision or
understanding of the university among the faculty at large and the new faculty
in particular. We believe that the university succeeds when all university
personnel have a clear understanding of the university mission of, "providing
opportunities for innovative teaching and learning in a career-oriented,
technological and professional education." At the same time, there is much
diversity in interests among faculty. Because over half of our faculty will be
retiring within the next 10 years, there is an opportunity to foster this common
understanding by attending to the incoming faculty.
Bonding
All incoming
faculty are invited to participate in the program. This is an opportunity to
participate with members from all corners of the institution. We are a
decentralized campus and without the program, it would be difficult for faculty
to form relationships outside their departments and develop the sense of
community that is so important to faculty cohesiveness. The relationships that
form during the program are based on a wide variety of interests, such as
solving daycare problems, sharing similar hobbies, developing joint projects,
and collaborating on grant proposals.
Ongoing
Support
There are
many opportunities over the year's meetings to share concerns about newcomer
issues in a safe and supportive environment. New faculty feel reassured when
they learn that the problems they face are not unique and that they need not
face them alone. The group facilitator and other faculty members in the program
often generate solutions to shared problems. Participants in the program
identify this close collegiality as one of the most valuable parts of the
program.
Employee
Retention
There is an
increased likelihood that incoming faculty will be asked to stay and that they
would want to stay if they have some preparation in teaching as well as an
understanding of the workings of the institution and the local community. Hiring
faculty is costly. We estimate that hiring a professor at our university ranges
from $8,000 to 10,000. The longer a faculty member is retained at an
institution, the less often the member's position needs to be filled and the
cost of hiring can be postponed. Providing a transition experience for the new
professor is in the financial interest of the university.
Based on
these expected benefits, we developed four specific goals for the program:
-
To assist
faculty in the development and refinement of their teaching.
-
To assist
faculty in developing the background and skills necessary to become excellent
student advisors.
-
To assist
faculty in developing peer relationships that can support their professional
growth and development.
-
To assist
faculty in becoming members of the community.
The
Transition program begins with a daylong session during the university-wide
orientation week before the beginning of Fall semester. This session focuses on
the development of peer interaction among the new faculty, a general overview of
the student population and tips on to survive the first two weeks of class. Two
panels, one of experienced faculty and one of mid-level administrators also meet
with the incoming faculty to discuss teaching, classroom management and
advising. After the initial session, participants in the program meet fourteen
times over the Fall and Winter semesters. Each meeting lasts two hours. The
first hour is devoted to faculty members' concerns about teaching, advising, or
other professional issues and the second hour consists of a presentation on
teaching or advising.
We focused
the training program on J. D. Bransford's (1979) four elements of instruction:
learner characteristics, assessment, media, and instruction:
Participants
in this program share a number of characteristics. As mentioned above, most of
the incoming faculty have little training in teaching and little experience with
novice learners, but they do have deep expertise in their subject matter. Also,
as a group, they are motivated by a passion for learning. We designed the
program sessions to take their strengths into account and to address their
needs.
We use
several strategies to assess the program and provide direction for changes. For
example, after each meeting, we use Small Group Instructional Diagnosis to
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of that session (Clark & Redmond, 1982).
We also collect anecdotal information by telephoning or sending e-mail messages
asking for feedback. Finally, we interview all participants as a group at the
end of each program year. We use this feedback to revise the program and
suggest to the university administration ways to improve the transition of
incoming faculty. Discussion in large groups and small groups is the primary
method of instruction. Participants are asked to read textual materials, most
often articles, prior to the meetings. Some topics lend themselves to
problem-solving methods, especially issues involving student behavior. Other
topics were presented as case studies. The faculty enjoy learning from each
other in this way, as evidenced by the favorable responses to sessions conducted
by panels of their colleagues. Media are not heavily employed in the program,
except when a session was specifically focused on the use of audiovisuals and
digitally-based instruction, since discussion was the primary teaching mode for
the group sessions. It is somewhat ironic that we do not use much instructional
technology in the training program, given the strong reputation the university
has in the use of online course management systems, but since one of our main
goals was to build personal relationships among the group members, it seemed
best to use face-to-face methods.
Most topics
are covered by focusing on a few major points of most immediate use to the
participants and supplying detailed handouts that provide in-depth discussions
of the topic, with additional applications. By keeping the amount of material
brief, we allow for more discussion and opportunities to practice.
Selecting
the Content
Program
content was selected from Bransford's four factors of learning, with the
addition of administrative responsibilities. Sample topics are listed below.
Learner characteristics
1. Current Learning Theories
2. Matching Students Learning Styles
to Teaching Styles
3. Teaching the Academically At-Risk
Learner
4. Theories of College Student
Development
Assessment
5. Using Informal Classroom
Assessment Techniques
6. Writing Fair and Effective Tests
Media
7. Using WebCT to Aid Instruction
Instruction
8. If You're Going to Lecture Do It
Well
9. Getting Students to Interact:
Tools for Discussion
10. Instructional Methods that
Address Learners' Varied Characteristics
Administration
11. Student Advising
12. Legal Issues and Teaching in
Higher Education
13. Using the Ferris Computerized
Student Information System for Advising
14. Institutional Resources for
Scholarly Activity and Grant Opportunities
Additional
Features
Some faculty
members assist in Transition training because they specialize in online
instructional software, specifically the WebCT course manager. They schedule
individual meetings with the incoming faculty to help them establish an initial
presence on the worldwide web. They create either a syllabus or a calendar. The
incoming faculty program also includes individual assistance to faculty through
the use of the Small Group Individual Diagnosis (SGID). This focus group
technique is used to summarize students' feedback about the professor's
instruction. (Clark & Redmond, 1982). As a group the incoming faculty also
attend a weekend retreat at an appropriate professional conference. The retreat
experience has been identified as a highly valued part of the program. It
greatly supports the bonding of the group.
Program
Cost
The program
is conducted by the Center for Teaching, Learning & Faculty Development and is
facilitated by a faculty member who works with the Center full-time. Food and
drink plus materials cost approximately $1000 per year. Additionally, $1,000 is
allotted per person for cost of travel to the conference retreat.
Logistics
of Program Operation
When
candidates are interviewed, they receive information about the yearlong
Transition program. When candidates accept faculty positions, they receive a
letter from the Vice President for Academic Affairs requesting them to take
part in the program. New faculty members also receive program information from
the CTL & FD, including the agenda for the first session meeting.
The current
faculty union contract does not require participation in the Transition program.
We had expected that incoming faculty might not choose to participate, but our
concerns about attendance were unfounded. In fact, nearly three-fourths of the
faculty attended regularly.
Finding
available meeting times has presented a challenge given the diversity of the
faculty members' teaching schedules. The Center has handled this by encouraging
academic departments to keep new faculty schedules open from 11 AM to 1 PM on
Thursdays. There is also material from each session available on the web.
Evaluation
of Program
The program
evaluation was conducted in three ways. First, we developed a questionnaire
about the helpfulness of the session topics in meeting the first two program
goals. Second, we solicited individual written feedback about the value of the
peer building activities, including conference travel. Finally, the coordinator
conducted ongoing group interviews soliciting specific ways to improve the
services to incoming faculty.
Outcomes
The program
has succeeded in establishing a community: Faculty have "bonded" as a cohort
group.
Faculty
members have:
-
indicated a
willingness to use the information learned in their teaching.
-
expressed
excitement about integrating new ideas and technologies into their teaching.
-
indicated a
strong support for the continuation of the program.
-
considered
positively the sharing of concerns about their first-year teaching experience.
-
enjoyed the
social interaction and saw it as important to the program
Follow Up
The New
Faculty Transition program is now in its fourth year and has been recognized by
both faculty and administration as an important and necessary part of a
first-year faculty member's transition into the Ferris academic community.
Faculty are not left alone after the first year. We conduct follow-up sessions
specifically for our "second" year and "third" year faculty. The program has
allowed us to maintain an identifiable community of connected and bonded faculty
within each year's group. Follow-up also includes sessions with members from all
three groups. During these sessions, the participants share experiences and
insights concerning their teaching experiences. This is congruent with our goal
of promoting lifelong learning among faculty members.
Philosophy
of the Center
Apart from
the special sessions for the incoming faculty, the Center offers a full schedule
of development activities open to all faculty, and over 70% of the faculty
attend at least one of the events. In spite of our full calendar and our
"faculty-as-learner-centered" approach, it is unlikely that we will ever achieve
the goal of engaging all faculty. However, training incoming faculty offers the
promise of engaging all faculty over time. At our institution, we expect half
of the faculty to retire within 10 years. It is conceivable that, given an
active training calendar and an active incoming faculty program, we might be
able to achieve the goal of total engagement. If this occurs, the Transition
program will have helped our academic community develop a common focus.
Future
Considerations
The Center
supports, but does not direct, the mentoring program at the university. There is
an opportunity for building a connection between the mentoring and the
Transition program because all incoming faculty are assigned mentors. This is a
relationship that we hope to develop to add another perspective to the
Transition program.
The positive
evaluations translated into an increased commitment on the part of the VPAA and
the Deans to the continuation of the program and to finding a way to require all
new faculty to take part.
References
Bransford, J.D. (1979). Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and
Remembering. pp. 6-9, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Clark, D., &
Redmond, M. (1982). Small group instructional diagnosis: Final report.
University of Washington, Seattle. FIPSE. ERIC Document Reproduction Service.
No. ED 217 954.
Fink, L.
(1984). The first year of college teaching. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, No. 17. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Renegar, S.,
Summary, B., Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1988). Mandatory teaching effectiveness
workshops for new faculty: Lessons learned the hard way. The Journal of Staff,
Program, and Organizational Development, 5(3), 114-118.
Eison, J.
(1989). Mandatory teaching effectiveness workshops for new faculty: What a
difference three years make. The Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational
Development, 7(2), 59-66.
Eison, J. &
Hamner Hill, H. (1990). Creating workshops for new faculty. The Journal of
Staff, Program, and Organizational Development, 8(4), 223-234. |
