Faculty perceptions of faculty development in the Small College Consortium

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of faculty members of member colleges of the Small College Consortium toward faculty development practices and to describe the differences between institutional programs of faculty development that were promising and those that were less than promising. The colleges in the Small College Consortium were selected because they represented a cross section of small colleges in the United States.

The primary means and procedures used in data assembly for this research involved a mail opinionnaire to 330 of the 2368 faculty members in the Small College Consortium. Data from these opinionnaires were used to describe faculty perceptions of faculty development practices and to identify institutions with promising faculty development programs and institutions with less than promising programs. Personal interviews then provided information about the faculty development programs of the two colleges with the highest developmental promise and the two colleges with the lowest developmental promise.

The findings of the research were that faculty members perceived self evaluation, faculty forums, workshops, peer evaluation, and training in the use of instructional technology to be highly practiced and highly desired. Faculty members also perceived summer stipends, use of a learning center, interinstitutional visits, faculty experience terms, use of consultants, sabbatical leaves, and faculty exchange as practices in which they had participated very little but in which they desired to increase their participation. Over 50 percent of the iv

faculty respondents desired an increase in summer stipends, experience terms, workshops, sabbatical leaves, forums, training in instructional technology, interinstitutional visits, self evaluation, use of consultants, use of a learning center, faculty exchange, and peer evaluation.

The research also found differences in faculty perceptions of faculty development practices based on size college, faculty rank, and faculty sex. Desire to increase participation in five practices was lower for faculty from colleges with less than 900 students than for faculty from colleges with 90o-ll0o students. These practices were: faculty workshops, enrollment in on-campus courses, growth contracts, involvement with a faculty development committee, and the use of an instructional consultant. Three practices were perceived differently by faculty of various faculty ranks: use of student evaluation, use of instructional consultants, and enrollment in on-campus courses. Twelve practices were perceived differently by men and women faculty: participation in experience terms, desire to participate in faculty exchanges, enrollment in on-campus courses, use of student evaluation, participation with a faculty development committee, micro teaching, peer teaching, workshops, desire to enroll in on-campus courses, growth contracts, interinstitutional visits, and the use of consultants.

Faculty members reported that faculty workshops were the source of both uncommonly effective teaching behavior and uncommonly ineffective teaching behavior.

Colleges with promising faculty development programs had nearly two times the development activity as colleges with less promising development programs. The less than promising programs were just beginning to get started or had been started and had lost momentum. The promising programs had high levels of optimistic participation, leadership, and faculty ownership.

Administrators of faculty development programs need reliable data about faculty perceptions of faculty development practices. The information provided by this study should help administrators plan faculty development activities in the future.