USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Faculty development practices at Florida's public community colleges

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Faculty development practices at Florida's public community colleges perceptions of academic administrators, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty members
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Finlay, Susan Sparling
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Higher education
Teacher improvement
Effective instruction
Chief academic officer
Inservice
Dissertations, Academic -- Higher Education -- Doctoral -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Faculty development is a means by which institutions can assist faculty in addressing the challenges they face each day in the classroom. Certainly the importance of faculty development is never more evident than within community colleges where access is provided to all students through an open-door admission policy which often produces a more diverse student body creating numerous institutional challenges. Overtime, on many campuses, faculty development practices have come to play a prominent role in attending to these challenges.This study: (a) examined faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Floridas 22 public community colleges and determined if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty (b) assessed and compared the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty development practitioners, and academic administrators in these institutions, and (c) assessed and compared the relative perceived value of faculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. An original web-based questionnaire was used to gather data from the chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty at Floridas 22 public community colleges.Chief Academic Officers of 18 of the institutions reported that all 42 faculty development practices included in the survey were offered by at least one institution in the last three years. Results also revealed clearly that on all campuses, many full-time faculty were unaware that these practices were offered. No significant relationship was found between the total number of practices offered and the number of full-time faculty employed by institution. A relationship was noted between institutional size and the cluster of faculty development practices labeled general teaching enhancement practices. The mean perceived value by each respondent group on 42 faculty development practices reported three of six clusters revealed significant differences between fulltime faculty and chief academic officers. The perceived value ratings of faculty across six different discipline groups were observed for each of the six clusters of faculty development practices.Implications for future research were identified.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan Sparling Finlay.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 195 pages.
General Note:
Includes vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001709512
oclc - 68649251
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0001310
usfldc handle - e14.1310
System ID:
SFS0025631:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001709512
003 fts
005 20060614124923.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 060511s2005 flua sbm s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001310
035
(OCoLC)68649251
SFE0001310
040
FHM
c FHM
049
FHMM
090
LB2322 (Online)
1 100
Finlay, Susan Sparling.
0 245
Faculty development practices at Florida's public community colleges
h [electronic resource] :
b perceptions of academic administrators, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty members /
by Susan Sparling Finlay.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2005.
502
Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of South Florida, 2005.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 195 pages.
Includes vita.
520
ABSTRACT: Faculty development is a means by which institutions can assist faculty in addressing the challenges they face each day in the classroom. Certainly the importance of faculty development is never more evident than within community colleges where access is provided to all students through an open-door admission policy which often produces a more diverse student body creating numerous institutional challenges. Overtime, on many campuses, faculty development practices have come to play a prominent role in attending to these challenges.This study: (a) examined faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Floridas 22 public community colleges and determined if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty (b) assessed and compared the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty development practitioners, and academic administrators in these institutions, and (c) assessed and compared the relative perceived value of faculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. An original web-based questionnaire was used to gather data from the chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty at Floridas 22 public community colleges.Chief Academic Officers of 18 of the institutions reported that all 42 faculty development practices included in the survey were offered by at least one institution in the last three years. Results also revealed clearly that on all campuses, many full-time faculty were unaware that these practices were offered. No significant relationship was found between the total number of practices offered and the number of full-time faculty employed by institution. A relationship was noted between institutional size and the cluster of faculty development practices labeled general teaching enhancement practices. The mean perceived value by each respondent group on 42 faculty development practices reported three of six clusters revealed significant differences between fulltime faculty and chief academic officers. The perceived value ratings of faculty across six different discipline groups were observed for each of the six clusters of faculty development practices.Implications for future research were identified.
590
Adviser: James A. Eison, Ph.D.
653
Higher education.
Teacher improvement.
Effective instruction.
Chief academic officer.
Inservice.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Higher Education
Doctoral.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.1310



PAGE 1

Faculty Development Practices at Flor ida’s Public Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administrators Faculty Developmen t Practitioners, and Full-time Faculty Members by Susan Sparling Finlay A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Department of Adult, Career, and Higher Education College of Education University of South Florida Major Professor: James A. Eison, Ph.D. Robert F. Dedrick, Ph.D. W. Robert Sullins, Ed.D. William Young, Ed. D. Date of Approval: October 25, 2005 Keywords: higher education, teacher im provement, effective instruction, chief academic officer, inservice Copyright 2005, Susan Sparling Finlay

PAGE 2

Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my pare nts, Joan and Gerald Sparling who have given their love and always been supportive of my academic endeavors. I retained my maiden name in the publication of this dissertation to honor you both. To my husband John. Not a day goes by that I don’t recognize all that you have done for me to get to this day. The unwavering support, encouragement, and love you have pr ovided has given me the strength to overcome all obstacles. Wit hout your understanding a nd confidence in me this dissertation would not have been possibl e. This is also for my son Logan who was born just as I began my cour sework. Although curious as to what I was always doing and impressed that I was writing a book, you still didn’t understand why mommy was always busy. I hope that when you are older my gr aduation will serve as motivation in life.

PAGE 3

Acknowledgments I am indebted to a number of people w ho have contributed to the successful completion of this dissertation. Certainly fo remost among them is my committee chair, Dr. James Eison, who has given inordinate amounts of his time and energy to aid and assist me. I have learned a great deal fr om Dr. Eison, and I ap preciate the respect, concern, and mentoring he has shown me. He was unfailingly available for my questions and concerns, large or small, and always r eady with thoughtful suggestions and valuable insights. I would like to thank each of my comm ittee members for their guidance, support, and expertise as I pursued completion of this dissertation. Dr. Robert Dedrick, Dr. Robert Sullins, and Dr. William Young provided thoughtful comments and questions which certainly helped to focus the direction of my research. Each of you, with your special expertise, provided me with invaluable a dvice, encouragement, and careful guidance. I also wish to acknowledge the support of the administration and my colleagues at Manatee Community College. I could not ha ve conducted my research without their support and belief that this study was of valu e and central to the institution’s mission of providing ongoing faculty development. And la st, I cannot forget the encouragement and support of my fellow faculty and friends.

PAGE 4

i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................1 Background and Context..........................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................6 Research Questions..................................................................................................6 Significance of the Study.........................................................................................8 Limitations...............................................................................................................9 Delimitations..........................................................................................................11 Definitions..............................................................................................................12 Organization of the Study......................................................................................15 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.........................................................16 Defining Faculty Development..............................................................................18 Single Dimensional Approach...................................................................18 Developmental Approach..........................................................................19 Three Dimensional Approach....................................................................20 Four Dimensional Approach......................................................................25 Summary of Definitions and Definition to Be Used in Present Study......27 Historical Overview of Faculty Development.......................................................28 Faculty Development in Higher Education................................................28 Faculty Development in Community Colleges..........................................31 Importance of Faculty Development in Community Colleges..............................33 Student Diversity in an Open Admissions Climate...................................33 Lack of Teacher Preparation......................................................................34 Faculty Autonomy and Isolation................................................................35 Technology Explosion and Workforce Development................................36 Florida’s Administrative Code 6A-14.029................................................37 Summary....................................................................................................39 Research Exploring Faculty Deve lopment at Community Colleges.....................41 National Studies.........................................................................................41

PAGE 5

ii Most Notable National Studies..................................................................42 Murray’s Studies and Limitations..................................................42 Grant and Keim’s Study and Limitations......................................45 Individual State Studies.............................................................................47 Perceived Value of Faculty Development.............................................................48 Faculty........................................................................................................48 Faculty Development Practitioners............................................................49 Academic Administrators..........................................................................50 Important Questions That Remain.........................................................................51 Summary of Literature...........................................................................................52 CHAPTER 3 METHODS..............................................................................................54 Research Questions................................................................................................54 Research Design.....................................................................................................56 Development of Instrument...................................................................................57 Pilot Study..............................................................................................................60 Full Study Collection of Data................................................................................63 Population and Sample..........................................................................................66 Data Analysis Decisions........................................................................................74 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS................................................................................................79 Research Question 1: Faculty Development Practices Offered in the Last Three Years..................................................................................79 Research Question 2: Relationship Between Full-time Faculty Population and Total Number of Practices................................................83 Research Question 3: Relationship Between Full-time Faculty Population and Total Number of Practices in Clusters..............................85 Research Question 4: Perceived Relative Value of Faculty Development Practices...............................................................................93 Research Question 5: Relati onship Between Respondent Groups on the Perceived Value of Faculty Development Practices Grouped in Six Clusters...........................................................................100 Research Question 6: Relations hip Between the Perceived Value of Practices Grouped in Six Clusters and the Disciplines of Faculty.................................................................................................104 Additional Findings.............................................................................................116 Summary of Key Findings...................................................................................118 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION........................................................................................124 Summary..............................................................................................................125 Results and Conclusions......................................................................................128 Research Question One............................................................................130

PAGE 6

iii Research Question Two & Three.............................................................131 Research Question Four...........................................................................133 Research Question Five...........................................................................137 Research Question Six.............................................................................137 Implications and Recommendations for Florida’s Community Colleges............139 Implications and Recommendations for National Community Colleges............146 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research.....................................147 REFERENCES................................................................................................................151 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................162 Appendix A Email Request to Voting Member of the Council on Instructional Affairs for Name of Individual Directly Responsible for Faculty Development at their Institution............................................................................163 Appendix B Faculty Development Practices Survey Instrument............164 Appendix C Email to NCSPOD Board of Directors...............................180 Appendix D Email To Survey Respondents............................................181 Appendix E Second Email to Survey Respondents................................182 Appendix F Invitation to Particip ate in Focus Group Email to Pilot Study Respondents..............................................................183 ABOUT THE AUTHOR.......................................................................................End Page

PAGE 7

iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Three Dimensional Approaches.................................................................21 Table 2 Four Dimensional Approaches..................................................................26 Table 3 Individual State Studies.............................................................................47 Table 4 Cronbach’s Alphas for the Six Clusters of Faculty Development Practices ( n = 21).......................................................................................63 Table 5 Chief Academic Officer’s Demographics..................................................68 Table 6 Faculty Development Practitioner’s Demographics..................................70 Table 7 Institutional Response Rate and Percentage of Population........................72 Table 8 Full-time Faculty’s Demographics............................................................73 Table 9 Respondent’s Academic Discipline Area..................................................74 Table 10 Cronbach’s Alphas for the Si x Clusters of Faculty Development Practices ( n = 408).....................................................................................77 Table 11 Number and Percent of Institutions Offering Practice Per Chief Academic Officer.......................................................................................80 Table 12 Perceived Value of Faculty Development Practices by Respondent Group.....................................................................................93 Table 13 Paired-Samples T-test Results for CAOs and Full-time Faculty on the Perceived Value of Faculty Development Practices Grouped in Six Clusters..............................................................................................101 Table 14 Mean Perceived Value by Discipline for Faculty Development Practices Clusters.....................................................................................105 Table 15 Mean Perceived Value Differences for General Teaching Enhancement Practices............................................................................107

PAGE 8

v Table 16 Mean Perceived Value Diffe rences for Specialized Programs................108 Table 17 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Consultations.............................110 Table 18 Mean Perceived Value Diffe rences for Incentives and Awards..............111 Table 19 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Time Away From Campus....................................................................................................112 Table 20 Mean Perceived Value Diffe rences for Educational Resources..............113 Table 21 Summary of Differences Between Faculty Development Practices Clusters.....................................................................................123

PAGE 9

vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Relationship between the size of the full-time faculty population and the total numb er of practices offered................................84 Figure 2 Total number of faculty devel opment practices in General Teaching Enhancement Practices in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty..........................................86 Figure 3 Total number of faculty deve lopment practices in Specialized Programs in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty.............................................................88 Figure 4 Total number of faculty deve lopment practices in Consultations in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty........................................................................89 Figure 5 Total number of faculty de velopment practices in Incentives and Awards in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty.............................................................90 Figure 6 Total number of faculty devel opment practices in Time Away From Campus in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty........................................................................91 Figure 7 Total number of faculty deve lopment practices in Educational Resources in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty.............................................................92

PAGE 10

vii Faculty Development Practices at Florida’s Public Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administrators, Faculty Development Practitioners, and Full-time Faculty Members Susan Sparling Finlay ABSTRACT Faculty development is a means by which institutions can assist faculty in addressing the challenges they face each day in the classroom. Certainly the importance of faculty development is never more evident than within community colleges where access is provided to all students through an open-door admission policy which often produces a more diverse student body creating numerous institutional challenges. Overtime, on many campuses, faculty developm ent practices have come to play a prominent role in attending to these challenges. This study: (a) examined faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Florida’s 22 public community college s and determined if the total number of different practices offered as well as the di fferent types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the numb er of full-time facu lty (b) assessed and compared the relative perceived value of th ese practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty development practitioners, and academic administrators in these institutions, and (c) assessed and compared the relative percei ved value of faculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty with in six different discipline areas.

PAGE 11

viii An original web-based ques tionnaire was used to gather data from the chief academic officers, faculty development practitio ners, and full-time faculty at Florida’s 22 public community colleges. Chief Academic Officers of 18 of the institutions reported that all 42 faculty development practices incl uded in the survey were offered by at least one institution in the last three years. Results also revealed clearly that on all campuses, many full-time faculty were unaware that th ese practices were o ffered. No significant relationship was found between the total numbe r of practices offered and the number of full-time faculty employed by institution. A re lationship was noted between institutional size and the cluster of faculty developm ent practices labeled general teaching enhancement practices. The mean perceived value by each respondent group on 42 faculty development practices reported three of six clus ters revealed significant differences between fulltime faculty and chie f academic officers. The perceived value ratings of faculty across six different discip line groups were observed for each of the six clusters of faculty development practices. Implications for future research were identified.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Background and Context Community colleges are open-door institutio ns that provide access to higher education at an affordable price and are co mmitted to quality teaching. According to the American Association of Community Co lleges (2004), annual enrollment figures approximate 10.4 million students, with 5.4 million enrolled in credit programs. Fortyfour percent of all undergraduate s enrolled in higher education institutions in the United States attend community colleges. Compared to their university count erparts, students at community colleges come from a variety of diverse backgrounds and are more likely to be older, attend on a part-time basis, and enter as under pr epared learners. The diverse student body at community colleges has always created many challenges for traditional models of instruc tion and has stretched institutions’ learning resources in many directions. Historically, faculty developm ent initiatives have emerged in response to the various challenges faced by institutions of higher education. Given the role of higher education to respond to comm unity and societal changes, the need for faculty development programs to assist facult y members’ efforts to respond appropriately to a rapidly changing student populat ion has been firmly established. Despite the need for faculty development, the relevant literature does not reveal a distinct definition or program blueprint. That is, no single consensual definition of faculty

PAGE 13

2 development exists. The variety of faculty de velopment definitions that appear in the literature generally fit into a range of dimensional approaches that encompass such areas as: curriculum development, instructional de velopment, professional development, staff development, organizational development, and personal development. The single dimensional approach looks at faculty deve lopment as any activity that helps faculty become more competent teachers. It is si mplistic compared to a three dimensional approach that typically consists of the areas of organizational, instructional, and personal or faculty development as separate dimensi ons (e.g., Abedor & Sachs, 1984; Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Cooper, 1981; Gaff, 1975; Menges, 1985; Millis, 1994; National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizationa l Development, 1993; Professional and Organizational Development Network in Hi gher Education, 2003; and Schuster, 1990). A four dimensional approach distinguishes a di fference between instruct ional and curricular development, along with the professional a nd organizational dimens ions (e.g., Alstete, 2000; Brawer, 1990; California Postseconda ry Education Commission, 1988; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; and Grant & Keim, 2002). A nother approach lacks dimensions and takes a more holistic view and is simply termed the developmental approach. Taking into account the wide range of a lternative approaches, a comprehensive definition of faculty development might be: any activity or practi ce in higher education that is dedicated to the on-going value of improved learning and teaching through faculty, instructional, curricular, a nd organizational development. Faculty development supports and fosters improvement in higher educa tion through human development that is “lifelong, holistic, personal, a nd professional learning, growt h, and change” (POD, 2003).

PAGE 14

3 In many ways the history of organized faculty development programs in higher education is brief. Early efforts in the 1950’s and 1960’s were commonly limited to providing faculty with funding for conferences, sabbaticals, and release time. Growth in faculty development activities in the 1970’s wa s spurred through a vari ety of educational foundations offering institutional grants for instructional improveme nt. Two significant pieces of research during th e decade, Gaff’s 1975 book entitled, Toward Faculty Renewal and Bergquist and Phillips’ 1975 book, A Handbook for Faculty Development (Vol.1) brought significant atte ntion to the field. Committed to teaching, community colleges have integrated formal and informal faculty development practices since their hist orical beginning. Faculty development is central to the mission of community college s because of the multiple challenges faced. These challenges include, but are not limited to: changing diverse student body, technology explosion, declining higher education budgets, th e demand for greater statemandated accountability measures (Alexande r & Newsom, 1998; Alfano, 1993b; Alstete, 2000; Brancato, 2003; Cross, 2001; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Hammons, Smith, & Watts, 1978; Manzo, 1996; Millis, 1994; Oromaner, 1998; Pendleton, 2002; Plater, 1995), the lack of preparation and/or e xperience in teaching of many new faculty members (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Fugate & Amey, 2000; Gibson-Harman, Rodriguez, & Haworth, 2002; Mintz, 1999; Shakelfor d, 1993), and professional autonomy and isolation (Brancato, 2003; Outcal t, 2002). Challenges such as these historically have been, and can continue to be, addressed through faculty development programs within community colleges nationally.

PAGE 15

4 Faculty development takes on special significance in Florida’s community colleges as Florida has risen to the cha llenges presented by implementing a 1968 state statute (230.767 F. S. 1968) on staff and progr am development. This statute continued until July 20, 2004 in the Florida Administrative Code (6A-14.029) and called for every Florida community college to adopt polic ies on staff and program development and allocate “not less than two percent” from its resources available for current operations (1995, p. 260). On July 20, 2004 the Florid a Administrative Code (6A-14.029) was amended by removing the two percent allocation yet the code still co ntains the directive that “each community college shall identify within its annual operating budget funding to support staff and program devel opment activities” (1995, p. 260). Even without the two percent allocation re quirement, Florida’s policy stands as a model for other states and supports the resear ch in the area of faculty development that indicates that these programs are both necessary and valuable within community colleges. If higher education institutions want to res pond to the ever increasi ng changes in students and their needs that our society is produci ng, faculty development is one way to take action. Though faculty development may have va ried definitions and may be carried out in a wide variety of different ways resear ch seems to confirm the need for faculty development programs and research also define s some of the conditions that must be met if those programs are to be successful. Statement of the Problem While faculty development has a long history in community colleges throughout the United States, the faculty development efforts of Florida’s community colleges have

PAGE 16

5 not been studied either comp rehensively or recently. Although some Florida community colleges contributed to earlier National st udies (i.e., Centra, 1976; Smith, 1981; Cooper, 1982; Bauske, 1983; Dellamura, 1986; Snyder, 1988; Hoerner, Clowes, & Impara, 1991; Hopple, 1991; Murray, 1999, 2001; Grant & Keim, 2002), these descriptive studies typically focused attention on pr actices offered and failed to consider the perceived value of these practices and how perceptions ma y differ among faculty, faculty development practitioners, and academic administrators. Faculty development practices vary widely across the United States and although national studies have been conducted there is no clear picture of th e current profile in Florida’s community colleges. The most cu rrent national studies by Murray (2001) and Grant and Keim (2002) do not offer a picture of Florida that might guide in creation and/or improvement of programs. This is especially problematic when Florida community colleges must identify within their annual operating budget funds for staff and program development. This research addr essed the gaps that existed by empirically investigating Florida’s faculty development practices at the public community college level. Although a limited number of studies (i.e ., Byrd, 1985; Ellis, 1990; Phillips, 2002; Rosenberger, 1991; Titlow, 1980) isolated Florida’s community colleges as the population under investigation, these studies failed to look at the perceived value of faculty development practices and programs. Specifically, these studies did not compare full-time faculty, academic administrators, a nd faculty development practitioners on their perceived value of faculty development practi ces. The perceptions of these three groups,

PAGE 17

6 especially full-time faculty is necessary to deve lop a coherent analysis that can be utilized by institutions to develop, expand, or el iminate unnecessary faculty development offerings, not only in Florida, but nationwide as well. Full-time faculty and their professional development are the primary focus of faculty development and if their perceptions are not taken into account in developing practices and programs, it is possible, and probable, that unnecessary programs will be offered and needless dollars spent. This study forged new ground by investigating fulltime faculty, academic administrators, and f aculty development practitioners perceived value of the different types of faculty devel opment practices currently offered at Florida’s community colleges. Purpose of the Study One purpose of this study was to examin e faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges and to determine if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty. A second purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty deve lopment practitione rs, and academic administrators in these institutions. A third purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of f aculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. Research Questions The research questions were constructed based on the statement of the problem to

PAGE 18

7 collect the necessary information on the curren t picture of faculty development practices in Florida’s public community colleges. This st udy investigated and sought to answer the following questions: 1. What faculty development practices have b een offered in the last three years to full-time faculty employed at Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges? 2. What is the relationship between the si ze of the full-time faculty population at each of Florida’s 22 public community colle ges and the total number of different faculty development practices offered at those institutions? 3. What is the relationship between the si ze of the full-time faculty population at each of Florida’s 22 public community colle ges and the total number of practices within each of the six cl usters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, educational resources)? 4. How are faculty development practices vi ewed in terms of perceived relative value by chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty? 5. What is the relationship between the pe rceived value of faculty development practices grouped in six clusters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, education resources) and chief acad emic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty? 6. What is the relationship between the pe rceived value of faculty development

PAGE 19

8 practices grouped in six clusters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, education resources) and discipli ne of full-time faculty (i.e., natural sciences, mathematics and computer science, social sciences, humanities and arts, professions/occupational and applied scie nces, nursing and other allied health related fields)? Significance of the Study Given the importance of faculty devel opment nationally in higher education, the resulting descriptive information from this study of Florida’s community colleges can assist all institutions of higher education in assessing the breadth of their own faculty development programs in contrast to those in the state of Florida. This information may be used to change, alter, or add the elements of faculty development that full-time faculty perceive as having greatest value. In a time of shrinki ng budgets, community colleges throughout the nation are being called upon to be more accountable for the expenditure of all funds; this will require Florida’s community colleges to show that their resources are used to effectively advance both their in stitutional mission and faculty development program goals. There are several potential audiences for the results of this web survey investigation. The most immediate audience is Florida’s community college faculty development practitioners as well as acad emic administrators who are ultimately responsible for faculty development. This study looked at the breadth of faculty development practices and activities as well as alternative formats or modes of delivery

PAGE 20

9 that the practices and activities can take. Delivery format and not the variety of topics that could be explored within each format was the focus of this study. This analysis can provide insight into the breadth of possible faculty development practices available, as well as a clearer picture of each group’s perc eived value of various faculty development practices. Specifically, to be effective, facu lty development programs must be aware of and guided by faculty perceptions. Although individual institutions clearly have unique characteristic s, such as size and location, the study’s results can be used as an institutional self-assessment tool for each program. Additionally, while this i nvestigation focuses on Florida’s public community colleges, all institutions at every level of higher educati on, public or private, could profit from the analysis of faculty deve lopment that this investigation will provide. Other groups that would have great interest in and benefit from the results of this investigation are the national professional or ganizations that advocate for and represent the practitioners in the vari ous areas of faculty developm ent. The largest and most prominent of these organizations are: National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD), National Council fo r Staff, Program, and Organizational Development (NCSPOD), and Professional a nd Organizational Development Network in Higher Education (POD). Limitations Limitations are those cons traints or restrictive wea knesses in a research design that are beyond the researcher’s control a nd may influence the results, or how those results are interpreted, and pose threats to internal validity. The following are considered

PAGE 21

10 potential limitations of the present study: Respondent Related: 1. Respondents may respond in a manner they feel will be favored by their institution’s administration. 2. Respondents may be from institutions wh ere faculty development is a central focus and therefore would be more interested in carefully completing the survey. 3. Respondents may be from institutions with little or no faculty development and consequently may not be intere sted in responding thoughtfully. 4. Multiple campuses at an institution may create different faculty development needs among the campus faculty populations. Timing Related: 1. The time at which the survey will be sent out, early in the Fall semester, may not be the best time for respondents who are ne w to their institution or their position and consequently may not be familiar with the faculty development offerings at their institution. 2. Respondents may not regularl y read their email and may not open the survey during the one-month data collection period. Technology Related: 1. Respondents may not favor the use of t echnology in the delivery method of the survey. 2. Respondent’s internet connection may go down while responding to the survey and may not reconnect in order to complete it.

PAGE 22

11 Delimitations Delimitations are those parameters or restrictions, which the researcher controls, that affect the external validity and the gene ralizability of the st udy. The following are considered delimitations of the present study: 1. The current study restricted the popu lation under investigation to public institutions because private institutio ns do not have to abide by the same regulations as those regula ted by the state (e.g., the Flor ida Administrative Code 6A-14.029 which mandates each of Flor ida’s public community colleges to identify funding within their annual operating budget to support faculty development activities). 2. Five of Florida’s community colleges (Chipola, Edison, Miami-Dade, OkaloosaWalton, and St. Petersburg) have rece ntly (i.e., since 2001) begun to offer baccalaureate degrees and have been eliminated from the study as they may have faculty development programs that no longer focus on the uniqueness of the community college population. 3. Part-time or adjunct faculty will not be included in this study; as most faculty development programs are designed for full-time faculty, only full-time faculty will be investigated. 4. The current study was focused on instruc tional faculty development and did not examine staff development offerings, where staff is defined as all employees (e.g., secretaries, security officer s, faculty, and counselors).

PAGE 23

12 Definitions For purposes of this study, the following terms are defined: Faculty Development Practice: Any activity or policy de signed to stimulate improvement in a faculty member’s overall professional development. These activities are intended to stimulate learning and are meant to update, upgrade or improve the competence of a faculty member. These activ ities or policies may be presented in a variety of formats (e.g., workshops, conferen ces, consultations, grants, awards) and may be on any topic relevant to a faculty memb er’s professional development (e.g., teaching techniques, technology skills, retirement pl anning, leadership training, student assessment, university coursework, sabbatical). Public Community College : Any institution accredited to award the Associate in Arts or the Associate in Sc ience as its highest degree (C ohen & Brawer, 1996) and is not organized as a profit-making entity. Faculty Development : Broadly defined, any activ ity or practice in higher education that is dedicated to the ongoing value of improved learning and teaching through faculty, instructional, curricular, and organizational development. Faculty development supports and fosters improveme nt in higher education through human development that is “lifelong, holistic, pers onal, and professional learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003). Within this study the terms faculty development and faculty professional development may be used interchangeably. Additionally, the literature review describes several other terms that ar e found in the relevant literature that are commonly used interchangeably with the term faculty development. Terms such as

PAGE 24

13 curriculum development, instructional deve lopment, professional development, staff development, organizational development, a nd personal development, can be viewed as dimensions of the more broadly defined faculty development. Academic Administrator : The chief academic officer (CAO) who is the executive level instructional lead er (e.g. academic vice presidents, deans and provosts), and is the individual appointed by the in stitution’s president as the primary contact and the voting member on the Council on Instructional Affair s, part of the Florida Community College System which is a division of the Flor ida Department of Education (Council on Instructional Affairs, 1999). Within this st udy the terms academic administrator and chief academic officer may be used interchangeably with CAO being the most common reference. Faculty Development Practitioner : The individual most directly responsible for faculty development coordination as identifi ed by the chief academic officer of the institution. Within this study the terms faculty developer, faculty professional development practitioner and faculty development practi tioner (FDP) may be used interchangeably with FPD being the most common reference. Full-time Faculty : An individual who the Florida Community College System designates as full-time instructional pe rsonnel in accordance with the Community College Management Information System’s repor ting requirements. This individual is an employee of the institution with full or perm anent status and is hired to teach a full assignment of courses, normally the equivalent of at least five courses per semester or 15 load hours. This employee is paid by annual sala ry, receives benefits such as insurance or

PAGE 25

14 retirement compensation, and has an annual or continuing contract with the in stitution. This will not include counselors or librarians as some institutions designate these positions as full-time faculty. Part-time Faculty or Adjunct : An individual who the Florida Community College System designates as part-time instruc tional personnel in accordance with the Community College Management Informati on System’s reporting requirements. This individual is an employee of the institution without full or permanent status and is hired to teach at least one course on a per cont ract basis. This employee does not receive benefits such as insurance or retirement compensation. Within this study the terms parttime faculty and adjunct may be used interchangeably. Staff : “All college employees” (FAC, 1995, p. 260). Within this study, staff will refer to all college employees except those defined as full-time faculty or full-time instructional personnel in accordance w ith the Community College Management Information System’s reporting requirements. Assess: To determine the value or significance of. Relative Value: A judgment made by an individual that determines the worth in usefulness or importance in comparison to something else. Perceived Value : individuals “overall assessment of the utility of a product or service based on perceptions of what is rece ived and what is given" (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). Within this study the individual will be as ked to give their overall assessment of a faculty development practice (service) based on their perception of what that “service” will provide.

PAGE 26

15 Organization of the Study This chapter provides an introduction to the study by describing briefly the introduction to the study, the problem stat ement and research questions, the study’s purpose, significance, limitations, delimitations, and offering a set of definition’s of terms. Chapter 2 contains an extensive re view of the faculty development literature relevant to the study. It focuses on defini ng faculty development, offering a brief historical overview of faculty development in higher educatio n in general and at the level of the community college in particular by delineating the important factors that distinctively affect community colleges. Prev ious national and state studies are discussed, as well as the relative perceived value of f aculty development from the perspective of full-time faculty, faculty development prac titioners, and academ ic administrators. Chapter 3 describes the procedures utilized in this study, including the research questions under investigation, th e development of research in strument, the pilot study, the population and sample, data anal ysis decisions, and describes the collection and analysis procedures. Results of the survey instrument and the analysis of the data are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the study as well as a discussion of the findings, conclusions, implications and r ecommendations for further practice and research.

PAGE 27

16 CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature One purpose of this study was to examin e faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges and to determine if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty. A second purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty deve lopment practitione rs, and academic administrators in these institutions. A third purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of f aculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. Faculty development practices offered at community colleges prior to the 1960’s were meager and generally limited to sabbati cal or reduced teaching to pursue research. The definition of faculty development at the time was commonly built upon the few activities practiced and from th e lack of published literature pr ior to the 1960’ s, it appears that little else was offered. Now, nearly ha lf a century later, faculty development has become an integral part of higher education. Yet, instead of a single coherent de finition, a plethora exists. If faculty development is to continue to grow and strengthen in higher education, a unified definition needs to be developed that will refocus today’s practices on the challenges of

PAGE 28

17 decreasing budgets, increasing enrollment of diverse st udents, rapid changes in technology, increased demands for account ability, and increasing numbers of inexperienced and isolated faculty. This chapter first addresses the problem of the lack of a singular and commonly agreed upon definition of faculty devel opment by reviewing and synthesizing the published literature and attempting to categ orize the various approaches taken by the number of different component dimensions used to describe faculty development. Then a historical overview of facu lty development in both highe r education in general and community colleges specifically is presente d. This is followed by a discussion of the importance of faculty development in community colleges based on the unique challenges these institutions face, as well as the additional challenge and opportunity to Florida’s community colleges presented by the Florida Administrative Code 6A-14.029. Next, a variety of previous research studies that provide a context for the present study are reviewed. This chapter will conclude with an examination of two additional elements of this investigation, percei ved value of faculty developm ent and evaluation of faculty development. The limited published research on the perceived value of faculty development, as determined by academic administrators, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty, will be examined in order to guide and inform the present investigation. Lastly, the additional question of evaluation of faculty development is offered as an important corollary to the perceived value by the various groups typically involved in faculty development.

PAGE 29

18 Defining Faculty Development In 1979, David Caffey wrote, for all of the attention that faculty deve lopment has received in recent years, the concept itself retains a vague, somewhat el usive quality. As yet, those interested have not been able to agree on the mean ing of the term or on just what the concept should and should not encompass. (p. 312) Faculty development in the twenty-first centu ry is still an area of much activity on college and university campuses yet there is re latively little scholarly research. The area has gone through several transformations si nce its beginning in the 1950’s. One thing apparent from a comprehensive search of the published literature is that is that Caffey’s statement still rings true as no singular c onsensual definition of faculty development appears to exist. Single Dimensional Approach In its simplest form, the concept of f aculty development, according to Ebel and McKeachie (1985), is helping faculty memb ers become more competent teachers and scholars. There is an important and recogni zable problem, the need for more competent teachers and scholars, and a variety of possi ble solutions, for example, providing an inservice day, workshop, or perhaps a course at the local university. However, faculty development is a much more complex concept that has it roots in a variety of forms. Certainly the traditional definition of f aculty development has been synonymous with teaching improvement (Boice, 1984) research (Bland & Schmitz, 1990), and instructional development (Brawer, 1990). All institutions of higher education generally

PAGE 30

19 conduct some form of developmental activities for their employees to maintain vitality and for renewal (Centra, 1985). This may be in the form of faculty development, professional development, staff developm ent, instructional development, or organizational development. Throughout the hi gher education literat ure, these terms are widely used, and very often intersect in definition and use. Developmental Approach Development implies the addition of some new element in order to grow. It is a lifelong process that is multidirectional, involv es both gain and loss, has plasticity, is shaped by its historical/cultural context, and is multiply influenced. Menges (1985, p. 181) refers to the idea of development as “to become fuller, larger, better.” That it is a “natural process” that is “g radual and continual.” Indeed, the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development (NCSPOD) defines development as “a process of renewal, growth, change, and continuous improvement” (Burnstad, Hoss, & McHargue, 1993, p. 22). Found throughout the literature is the belief that developm ent at an institution of higher education is an on-going process that requires a long-term institutional commitment and not just a one-time shot in the arm activity (Mintz, 1999). Katz and Henry (1988) point out that the developmen t of excellent teac hing skills involves continuous learning, which is a lifelong pr ocess. Looking specifically at faculty development in this manner also requires seeing it as the theory and practice of facilitating improved faculty performance in a variety of domains, including the intellectual, the institutiona l, the personal, the social, and the pedagogical (Menges,

PAGE 31

20 1985). Teaching involves the whole personality and an individual’s emotions and affect are just as engaged as cognition when teachi ng (Gaff, 1975). Gelula (1997) states that faculty development is a “process which s eeks to modify the attitudes, skills, and behavior of faculty members toward greater competence and effectiveness in meeting student needs, their own needs, and the n eeds of the institution” (p. 270). Mintz (1999) has described this as a holistic approach to faculty development. She discusses the idea that development is something that the facu lty and the institution must undertake together and that it should not give sole attention to the idea of creating a quality teacher, but instead focus on the values of the instituti on and how quality teaching fits into that institution’s mission. Connecting faculty development to the mission of the institution is an initiative supported throughout the literature (Bland & Schmitz, 1990; Burnstad, Hoss, & McHargue, 1993; Dilorenzo & Heppner, 1994; Murray, 2001; Oromaner, 1998; Pendleton, 2002), as are the holis tic, multifaceted, comprehensive, or systems approaches to development (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Burnstad, Hoss, & McHargue, 1993; Quinlan, 1991; Schuster, Wheeler, a nd Associates, 1990; Simerly, 1977). Three Dimensional Approach Gaff (1975) in his seminal work, Toward Faculty Renewal, described three component dimensions of faculty development: faculty, instructional, and organizational. Others who have discussed a tri-component model are identified in Table 1 along with the terms used to label each component activity

PAGE 32

21 Table 1 Three Dimensional Approaches Study Component A Com ponent B Component C Gaff (1975) Faculty Instructional Organizational Bergquist & Phillips (1975) Personal Instructional Organizational Cooper (1981) Personal/Professional Program/ Instructional Organizational Abedor & Sachs (1984) Faculty Instructi onal Organizational Menges (1985) Personal Inst ructional Organizational Schuster (1990) Personal Professional Organizational NCSPOD (1993) Staff: Orientation Programs, Professional Development, Personal Development, Recognition/ Appreciation Programs Program Organizational Millis (1994) Faculty Instructional Organizational POD (2003) Faculty: As Teacher, Scholar/ Professional, Person Instructional Organizational As can be seen in this table, previous re searchers have used a variety of terms to describe Component A (e.g., faculty, pe rsonal, staff) and Component B (e.g., instructional, program, professional), while describing Component C as organizational. The three general areas laid out by Gaff in his seminal work, Toward Faculty Renewal (1975) seem to have been the guiding force behind the definition created by the Professional and Organizational Developm ent Network in Higher Education (POD;

PAGE 33

22 2003), an organization representing some 1,200 members, where faculty development is considered an umbrella term that include s the three interrelated areas of: faculty development, instructional development, and organizational development. Used in this way, the term faculty development refers to a comprehensive collection of activities and practices employed for overall institutional improvement. Abedor and Sachs (1984, p. 395) also discu ss the same three areas of orientation, yet they denote that the three areas have a “spiral relationship.” For example, they state that faculty development and organizational development “create readiness” for instructional development (p. 395). Schuster (1990) discusses a similar integrated approach, but uses the areas of personal, pr ofessional, and organi zational as the three aspects of development. POD (2003) further subdivides the first area faculty development, into three main focal areas. The first focal ar ea is “faculty member as a t eacher” and is the most common element of a traditional faculty development program in which the focus is on teaching, presentation, student intera ction, student evaluation, cour se design and organization. Abedor and Sachs (1984) describe faculty de velopment as emphasizing “the development of self-awareness and teaching skills of f aculty members” (p. 394). This area would consist of seminars and workshops that prom ote faculty growth and increase the faculty members’ knowledge, skills, sensitivities, and instructional techniques (Gaff, 1975). The second focal area defined by POD (2003) is the “faculty member as a scholar and professional” and is cente red around the career of th e individual outside of the classroom. This focal area would include conference attendance, grant writing,

PAGE 34

23 committee work, sabbatical, admini strative work, and publishing. The third focal area is the “faculty member as a person” where interpersonal skills such as wellness, time, and stress management are the main concern (POD, 2003). Graf, Albright and Wheeler (1992) refer to this area as personal development and include career planning as a component. This focal area should cause a faculty member to “reexamine his own life goals and values ” (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975, p. 199), and provide three basic elements: life planning experiences, personal growth workshops, and supportive and therapeutic couns eling. This last focal area was also discussed by Gaff when he called for increasing attention to the personal elemen t and is a commonly neglected area in faculty development program s. According to Cross (2001, p. 33) it is “appropriate to the health and sa tisfaction of faculty members.” NCSPOD (as cited in Burnstad et al., 1993) also divides component A into focal areas under the term staff development but in a much different way. Staff development is divided into (a) orientation programs for ne w staff; (b) professional development to efficiently and effectively perform one’s job; (c) personal development for interpersonal skills; and (d) recognition/ appreciation programs to support employees. The approach and focus that NCSPOD takes are much more institutional than previously described definitions and is evident by the use of the term staff instead of faculty. NCSPOD does not single out faculty for development but inst ead focuses on staff, “the people who serve the organization and its consumers” (a s cited in Burnstad et al., 1993, p. 22). Instructional development, as defined by POD (2003), focuses on “the course, the curriculum and student learning” in an e ffort to improve the institution. POD (2003)

PAGE 35

24 further defines instructional development as an approach based on assisting faculty members to form a team “to design the best pos sible courses within the restrictions of the resources available.” Possible activities ma y include identifying appropriate course structures, design of new courses, overall institutional fit of a course, and course effectiveness evaluation. The focus is on “the effectiveness of what is being taught to whom” (Quinlan, 1991, p. 11). Abedor and Sach s’s (1984, pp. 394-395) definition of this concept is similar in that it emphasizes “the development of adoption of innovative methods of teaching.” Possible activities woul d be those that “deal directly with the systematic design, development, implemen tation, and evaluati on of instructional materials, lessons, courses, or curricula in order to improve student learning or teaching efficiency.” It must be noted that this area may be referred to as curriculum development as new instructional materials are created, re vised, and evaluated, as well as, developing scholarly and teaching abilities. However, several researchers have distinguished curricular development as a separate com ponent (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Brawer, 1990; Eble & McKeachie, 1985). The last area, under the POD (2003) um brella of faculty development, is organizational development that focuses on “the organizational structure of the institution and its sub components” where “m aximizing institutional effec tiveness” is the main goal. Activities range from administ rative development to faculty personnel issues. The focus is on the “interactions within the institution and how they affect the functioning of the individual as well as the institution”. Here again, Ab edor and Sachs’s (1984, pp. 394395) definition of this concept is very sim ilar in that the focus is “upon improving the

PAGE 36

25 organization within which instruction takes place.” The activities would be those that “seek to change the structure, policies, and organizational environment in which instruction takes place in order to make that environment more supportive or instructional change” (pp. 394-395). Bergquist and Phillips (1975) note that there are “three closely interrelated aspects of orga nizational development: team-building, decision-making, and conflict-management” (p. 141), and then addition ally point to a fourth aspect, managerial training. This idea of organiza tional development is not new; as Gaff (1975) pointed out that the right institutional atmosphere is necessary for faculty development to be implemented. Gaff (1977) later pointed out that faculty should be just as concerned with organizational development as their welfare “is intimately ti ed to the welfare of the institution of which they are a part” (p. 516). Four Dimensional Approach In addition to the three dimensional appr oaches noted in the previous section, several researchers have identified four distinct components: Eble and McKeachie (1985); the California Postsecondary Edu cation Commission (CPE C) (1988); Brawer (1990); Alstete (2000); and Grant and Keim (2002). In some cases, such as Alstete (2000), the fourth component curricular de velopment “overlaps with each of the preceding areas” (p. 3). In another case, Gran t and Keim (2002) also identify four categories, but use the term curricular instead of instruc tional while Brawer (1990) and the California Postsecondary Education Co mmission (CPEC) (1988) identify four clusters: professional, instructiona l, curricular, and organizational. Examining Table 2 one can clearly see that as with the three dimensional

PAGE 37

26 approach, component name C, organizationa l development is an area agreed upon by these researchers. It appears that the fourth dimension, for most of the researchers, is curricular, and is viewed as clea rly separable from instructional. Table 2 Four Dimensional Approaches Study Component AComponent B Component C Component D Eble & McKeachie (1985) Faculty Instructional Organizational Curricular CPEC (1988) Professional Instruct ional Organizational Curricular Brawer (1990) Professional Instru ctional Organizational Curricular Alstete (2000) Personal/ Professional Instructional Organi zational Curricular Grant & Keim (2002) Professional Curricular Organizational Personal The first area or component, according to Eble and McKeachie (1985) is faculty development, also designated as personal, professional, or staff development, and is designed to improve student learning and impr ove teacher competence. Practices may be release time, workshops, and seminars. Brawer (1990) refers to this area as professional development that “promotes the expertise of faculty members within their primary discipline” (p. 51). Alstete ( 2000) concurs with this defi nition of promoting faculty growth in skills, knowledge, and awareness. Brawer (1990) identifies in structional development as improving the effectiveness of a faculty’s ability to teach and as defined by Alstete (200 0), instructional development would involve updating courses, styles of instruction, as well as creating learning materials. Eble and McKeachie (1985) make the distinction that emphasis is on the instructional situation and not faculty competence.

PAGE 38

27 Organizational development, according to Brawer (1990) “engages faculty members in improving their institution and its environment for teaching and decisionmaking” (p. 52). Alstete (2000) points to this component as creating an atmosphere where new practices can be impl emented and faculty can develop. The fourth general area is curriculum development, which focuses on evaluating and revising curriculum (Brawer, 1990). It involves the creation of new instructional materials (Alstete, 2000; Eble & McKeachie, 1985). Summary of Definitions and Definition to Be Used in Present Study Most institutions combine the three areas of faculty, instructional, and organizational development that POD incorpor ates under the umbrella term of faculty development to create their own unique progr am of activities unde r the auspice of a faculty development program, committee, or office. Some institutions also include curricular development as either a separate area or one that overlaps typically with instructional development. The two most commonly implemented program types are professional and instructional. The most common practices utilized are sabbatical, tuition reimbursement, paid conference attendance, and in-house workshops (Brawer, 1990). Overall, the California Postsecondary Edu cation Commission (1988) notes that faculty development should be directed at better e ducation for students. Indeed, the Commission indicates that most faculty development practi ces fit into the two cat egories of improving instruction and increasing knowledge where im proved instruction for students often deals with diverse learning styles, technology, a nd assessment and increasing knowledge is more likely to be retraining of faculty members in a closely related field to fulfill the

PAGE 39

28 needs of the institution and its students. Thus, as no singular consensual definition exists, for the purposes of the present study, the term faculty development will be de fined and used as: any activity or practice in higher education that is dedicated to the on-going value of improved learning and teaching through faculty, instructional, curr icular, and organizational development. Faculty development supports and fosters improvement in higher education through human development that is “lifelong, holis tic, personal, and professional learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003). This broad and holistic definition embr aces the diverse activities practiced at various institutions that mi ght otherwise defy categorizat ion. Many practices commonly referred to as faculty development, resist cl assification into specific categories such as curricular or instructional, wh ile others clearly cut across two or more categories. In addition, another advantage of a holistic a pproach is that administrators, faculty development practitioners, and faculty, typically focus more on the specific practices and less on the categories these practices might represent. Historical Overview of Faculty Development Faculty Development in Higher Education During the latter part of the 1950’s and into the 1960’s, f aculty development practices were commonly limited to sabbatical s, generally for publication, funding for conferences, and release time to help f aculty pursue advanced degrees (Blackburn, Pelino, Boberg, & O’Connell, 1980; Eble & Mc Keachie, 1985; Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). Miller and Wilson’s (1963) research f ound few comprehensive programs. Faculty

PAGE 40

29 development emerged as a significant move ment in higher educa tion during the 1960’s. In the 1970’s, as complaints from constituents were on the rise regarding teaching (Gaff, 1977), the focus on faculty development seemed to shift toward teaching. This shift was helped pushed forward by founda tions offering grants for programs and institutions that wanted to work towards improving the quality of instruction. Notable foundations that offered gran ts were, Mellon, Danforth, Ca rnegie, Lilly, Kellogg, Bush and Ford (Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). Some of the first faculty development practices developed with these grants were instructional improvement efforts where presentation techniques, typically using audiovisual e quipment, were the central focus (Toombs, 1983). During the 1970’s faculty development continued to grow and mature as it responded to the demands for faculty account ability and evaluation. In 1974, the Group for Human Development in Higher Education, published Faculty Development in a Time of Retrenchment which brought the need for faculty development to the forefront of national attention among faculty and administrators and prov ided suggestions on how to create programs with a hu manistic focus. A new national professional organization appeared, the Network for Professional and Organizational Developm ent or POD, whose mission “encourages the advocacy of the on-go ing enhancement of teaching and learning through faculty and organizational developmen t” (POD, 2003). Also in 1974, the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges formed a program to assist institutions in creating faculty development programs (Blackburn et al., 1980). In 1976, John Centra’s work with the Edu cational Testing Serv ices was released

PAGE 41

30 and reported the results of hi s survey of 2,600 colleges in which almost half responded that they had some type of faculty deve lopment program (Gaff, 1977). This helped document that faculty development had become a movement that was reaching across the nation (Blackburn et al., 1980). Also in 1975, Jerry Gaff published his seminal work, Toward Faculty Renewal funded by the Exxon Education Foundation. This research not only reported on what was being done in the area of faculty development at the time, but also set forth an analysis of the different approaches to faculty developmen t in an effort to delineate the differences, as well as indicate how they are complementary. Finally, in the same year, 1975, Bergquist and Phillips put out their first of three volumes entitled, A Handbook for Faculty Development This series was designed as an aid to those already pursuing faculty devel opment and brought greate r attention to the expanding area of faculty development in higher education. The 1980’s brought about a change in fundi ng for faculty development initiatives (Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). External suppor t for faculty development programs was reduced as the U.S. Department of Defens e and the National Institutes of Health redirected the focus of their grants program s away from teaching and towards research. This coupled with the “Generation X” student s entering college, led to several reports in the late 1980’s decrying the need for hi gher education to refocus on teaching. These reports, Involvement in Learning (1984), Pr ofScam (1988), and The Moral Collapse of the University (1990), seemed to refocus atte ntion to enhancing the quality and emphasis on teaching and to expanding faculty deve lopment opportunities (Fletcher & Patrick,

PAGE 42

31 1998). Criticism of the quality of teaching c ontinued into the 1990’s, and additional expectations and challenges arose. Rising tuit ion costs coupled with declining test scores, increased the public demand for greater accountability (Millis, 1994). Accountability came in two forms, one of assessing the teachi ng and learning in the classroom, in many cases utilizing Angelo and Cross’s (1993) classroom assessment techniques, and secondly, in shifting the focus of the classroom to be student-centere d and less instructorcentered. In their landmark article, Barr and Ta gg (1995) address the ne ed for a shift from institutions that teach or inst ruct to ones that are “produc ing learning with every student by whatever means work best” (p. 13). Additio nal pressures came from society to educate the workforce of the 21st century and faculty recognized th eir need for training to better educate that workforce, especially in the area of technology. Faculty development programs can respond to the complex changes occurring. Faculty Development in Community Colleges The mission of community colleges is to provide comprehensive educational programs to all segments of society through an open-access admissions policy that offers equal and fair treatment to all students in it s service region, maintaining a commitment to teaching and lifelong learning. This mission certai nly sets community colleges apart from other institutions of higher education as co mmunity colleges are intended to meet the needs of the community and are expected to keep up with the changes and challenges that present themselves in society. With a stated commitment to teaching, community colleges have integrated

PAGE 43

32 faculty development throughout their history. Many of the first faculty members employed by community colleges were t eachers trained for secondary schools and already had a focus on teaching. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, a community college was created about every two weeks to capitalize on the enrollment growth in post-secondary education. This growth brought masses of unpr epared students and now those faculty members needed to be “developed” in the mission of community colleges and the onslaught of technology banging at the door (Rosenberger, 1991). Community colleges commonly focused on strategic planning in the 1980’s and faculty and staff development became know n as the vehicle to plan, develop, and evaluate the direction of the college. Studies indicate that even with community colleges using faculty and staff development to impl ement planning, there did not seem to be a pattern or trend in a comprehensive approach to staff developmen t (Rosenberger, 1991). In the 1990’s community colleges were f aced with many challenges that continue to exist and remain the focus of faculty development. Community colleges each have their own unique set of challenges, but for th e most part the reasons why a discussion of faculty development is so important lies in the multiple challenges that all community colleges face today. The challenges incl ude a changing dive rse student body, a technology explosion, declining higher education budgets, th e demand for greater statemandated accountability measures (Alexande r & Newsom, 1998; Alfano, 1993b; Alstete, 2000; Brancato, 2003; Cross, 2001; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Hammons, Smith, & Watts, 1978; Manzo, 1996; Millis, 1994; Oromaner, 1998; Pendleton, 2002; Plater, 1995), the lack of preparation and/or e xperience in teaching of many new faculty

PAGE 44

33 members (Bowen & Schuster, 1986; Fugate & Amey, 2000; Gibson-Harman, Rodriguez, & Haworth, 2002; Mintz, 1999; Shakelfor d, 1993), and professional autonomy and isolation (Brancato, 2003; Outcalt, 2002). Parn ell (1990) points out that institutions and faculty are interdependent and how an inst itution addresses the challenges it faces needs to be integrated into the r ecruitment, retention, and renewal of faculty members, all of which can be a part of a comprehensive faculty development program. Importance of Faculty Developm ent in Community Colleges Research in faculty development highlight s the fact that alth ough there are varied definitions and a plethora of ways in which to conduct faculty development, the need for community colleges to pursue comprehensive faculty development programs is widely recognized and those reasons are at the core of its unique identity. Student Diversity in an Open Admissions Climate Almeida (1991) points out that one of th e most attractive aspects of community colleges is the open admissions policy, but with open admissions comes underprepared students. Community colleges have one of the most diverse student populations. Neilson (1991) describes four typical groups of students coming to community colleges where the first group is well-prepared and highly motivated and the remaining three groups are defined by the terms, underprepared, lacking motivation or experience, and having a low self-concept. In the atmosphere of putting the st udent and student learning at the center of what community colleges must do, faculty find that they must not only understand their own learning and teaching styles, but also und erstand the learning styles of their students and to teach to those various styles (F ulton & Licklider, 1998). Several studies

PAGE 45

34 (Anderson, 1997; Atkins, Brinko, Butts, Claxto n, & Hubbard, 2001; Baker, Roueche, & Gillett-Karam, 1990; Fugate & Amey, 2000) note the increasing pressure put on community college faculty and administrators to adapt to the needs of the diverse student population through revitalization of the classroom. Murray (2002b) notes that the first reason community colleges need to provide faculty development is to equip faculty with the necessary tool s to work with the students that open door policies genera te. As Bakutes (1998) comm ents, teaching is not just covering the course content, but it is the ab ility to communicate the material effectively and an effective faculty development program can assist faculty members in learning the appropriate communication skills for their population. However, Almeida (1991) asserts that little has been done to provide faculty with the n ecessary skills to teach the underprepared students and t hus Nielsen (1991) calls fo r the creation of faculty development programs as an inst itutional and faculty priority. Lack of Teacher Preparation Most faculty teaching in the diverse aren a of community colleges have minimal experience in teaching students who operate at both ends of the skill level continuum and with unique learning styles. Incoming faculty may be knowledgeable in their content area but very few graduate schools adequately pr epare them for teaching at the two-year college level (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Gibson-Harman, Rodriguez, & Haworth, 2002). Angelo (1994) contends that new inst ructors lack the necessary training in assessing student learning as well as the ski ll to diagnose teaching or learning problems. This can make the teaching process, as well as the learning process, ineffective

PAGE 46

35 (Shakelford, 1993). Making the transition from graduate student to professor can be difficult, but a faculty development program th at provides resources to orient new faculty could prove beneficial prof essionally, socially, and personally for the individual (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). Fugate and Am ey (2000) conducted a qualitative study on the career stages of community college faculty that supports this notion. Their research found that new faculty members felt that they benefited, or could ha ve benefited, from a faculty development program that provided th em with information on the nature of the student population, institutional philosophy a nd priorities, practical classroom teaching advice, and assistance with the day-to day issu es that might arise in the classroom. They also state that since the private sector can lure new faculty away from the academe, faculty development practices can al so serve as a retention strategy. Faculty Autonomy and Isolation Faculty autonomy and isol ation leading to the possi ble burnout of faculty members can create another challenge that faculty development practices can address. Menges (1985) described this as debilitati on by weariness and bore dom of educators who must cope with the monotony of teaching the same classes year after year. The open door policies of community colleges typically pres ent the faculty member with underprepared students and this coupled with what Cohen and Brawer (199 6) denote as a common faulty belief that there is administrative pressure to lower standards, appears to have a “demoralizing” effect on the faculty. Faculty can suffer from mid-life crises caused by physical, social, emotional, and pedagogica l exhaustion. Senior faculty can have additional difficulties with despair, loss of identity, fear, and disillusionment as

PAGE 47

36 retirement approaches (DiLorenzo & Heppne r, 1994). Faculty development programs can provide the antidote to this problem (Murra y, 2002a), and should cr eate practices that promote vitality and vigor in f aculty (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994). Technology Explosion and Workforce Development With the 21st century upon us, community coll eges are caught in yet another challenge. This challenge is being driven by two distinct groups. On the one hand, students of Generation X have arrived on the door-step of community colleges with a media orientation and a comfortable familiar ity with technology. Such students often push both faculty and institutions to make gr eater use of computers and other technology tools. Institutional comm unication with students, especially in the teaching arena, needed to change. Faculty increasingly need to de velop the same familiarity and comfort with technology as their students not only for classroom utilization, but for communication with their students via email and the Wo rld Wide Web (Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). In addition, business and industry increas ingly expect that community colleges can train or retrain their workforce. Much of the training desired for 21st century workers involves the ever-changing field of tec hnology. Murray (2002b) not ed that faculty development is needed to meet these demands if students are to be successful in the workplace or in their future studies. The cri tical skills that are being stressed by business are, critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills, all of which can be potentially addressed in ever y class if faculty adapt the appropriate instructional approaches; thus faculty must be trained to te ach the skills that their students will need to successfully enter the wo rkplace (Millis, 1994).

PAGE 48

37 Florida’s Administrative Code 6A-14.029 The challenges discussed to this point are nationwide. However, each state, and individual region, will have its own distin ctive set of challeng es. Nationally, most institutions will address these challenges thr ough some type of faculty development. In Florida, it is certain that th e challenges will be dealt with through faculty development as the Florida community college system has manda ted that each institution must identify funding within their annual operating budget to support faculty development activities. In 1968, community college staff and progr am development was placed in Florida statute (230.767 F. S. 1968) and has continued to be an impor tant part of the community college philosophy through the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 6A-14.029 (Rosenberger, 1991). FAC 6A-14.029 called for every Florida community college to adopt policies on staff and program development and allocate “not less than two percent” (the original statute called for three percen t) from its resources available for current operations (1995, p. 260). On July 20, 2004 th e Florida Administrative Code (6A-14.029) was amended by removing the two percent al location yet the code still contains the directive that “each community college shall identify with in its annual operating budget funding to support staff and program development activities” (1995, p. 260). The state defines staff development as “the improvement of staff performance through activities which update or upgrade competence specified for present or planned positions” (FAC, 1995, p. 260). The state further defines program development as “the evaluation and improvement of existing pr ograms, including the design of evaluation instruments to establish bases for improve ments, as well as the designing of new

PAGE 49

38 programs. It is program initiation or improveme nt rather than maintenance or expansion” (FAC, 1995, p. 260). What is note worthy is that until the July 2004 amendment, this code specified accountability through a report to be submitted annually to the State Board of Community Colleges describing how the f unds are expended, a description of the programs improved/initiated, the number of part icipants in staff development activities, and an evaluation of the effectiveness in relation to college policies (FAC, 1995). This program, and its evaluation, may stem in part from the philosophy of the regional accrediting body for Florida’s community co lleges, The Southern Association for Colleges and Schools (SACS). The SACS (2004 ) criteria for accreditation, section IV on professional growth state, “an institution must provide faculty members the opportunity to continue their professiona l development throughout their careers and must demonstrate that such development occurs”. Florida is considered to have one of th e most diverse populations in the nation and therefore, it will be imperative to train a nd re-train college staff and faculty in new models of instruction, tec hnology, and learning styles (F lorida Community College System [FCCS], 1999). In response to this, in the Florida Community College System’s (1999) strategic plan of 1998-2003, a conti nued commitment was made to staff and program development to encourage institu tions to upgrade skills “in the areas of curriculum development, distance learning, ad aptive technology and in teaching students from diverse cultures” (p. 22). Florida’s philosophy for staff and program development has garnered national praise. The American Association of Co mmunity College Futures report made a

PAGE 50

39 nationwide call for all states to enact a two percent set aside for staff and program development similar to Florida’s (FCCS, 1999). It is unfortunate that even this national recognition could not save the two percent al location from being removed however it is promising that the Florida Administrative C ode (6A-14.029) still cont ains the directive that “each community college shall identify within its annual operating budget funding to support staff and program developm ent activities” (1995, p. 260) Summary Alleviation of the institutional pressure that challenges such as decreasing budgets, increasing enrollment of diverse students, rapid changes in technology, a demand for accountability, and inexperienced and isolated faculty creates can be addressed by implementing a broad based facu lty development program that addresses all aspects of faculty life. Such programs can in crease effectiveness and efficiency in the classroom and complement institutional goals (Millis, 1994). Faculty need on-going support services that supply fresh and innova tive instructional a pproaches to better address these challenges with adaptability and flexibility. DiLorenzo and Heppner (1994) note that faculty development must be an institutional priority because the effectivene ss of higher education is directly related to the vitality and resourcefulness of its faculty. Making faculty development an institutional priority means starting at the top and the vi sible support of the college president is critical along w ith a strong and consistent funding source (Weimer, 1990). It must be noted that this is not a new call to arms. In 1977, Gaff also proposed that the future of faculty development lies in the ab ility for programs to become institutionalized

PAGE 51

40 with strong administrativ e and financial support. Many states and subsequent districts do indeed allocate some funding to practices that support the idea of more competent teach ers, however, most of the attempts to spend this money are spread across campus, department s, and leaders. They can be sporadic and uncoordinated and it is rare, if indeed possibl e, to find a centralized unit of professional development that supports the institution’s mission. Today’s community colleges are in the mi dst of addressing some very difficult challenges. During poor economic times, budgets are decreasing and student enrollment is increasing. The influx in students has br ought a new demographic diversity unseen in the past and this group is t ypically underprepared. If th ese challenges weren’t enough, the public is demanding accountability for stude nt learning, technology is changing at a lightning pace, and the age old pr oblem of faculty isol ation, and lack of ‘teacher training’ still persist. The challenges, within the current situation, can be addressed through broadly based faculty development programs that address all facets of faculty life (Millis, 1994) in which the existing staff are retraine d to meet the changing demands of society and students (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Faculty development programs may be the only way to address the challenges head on. These programs should put student learning at the center through the holistic deve lopment of the faculty member throughout their careers. Lastly, a final answer to the question of why community colleges need faculty development is simple. “Every major profession has accepted the idea of continuing professional education in some form. Is the professoriate to be different” (Toombs, 1983, p. 358)?

PAGE 52

41 Research Exploring Faculty Development at Community Colleges Faculty development literature is oftentimes difficult to locate since, as previously discussed, multiple terms and definitions have been used. Because of this, several literature searches were conduc ted to identify relevant pr evious studies. The two main databases that were searched were ERIC and Dissertation Abstracts, although other databases were searched as well. Each was searched using several of the most common descriptor terms: faculty development, instru ctional development, and staff development. National Studies Comprehensive research into faculty de velopment in community colleges seems to date from Centra’s work in 1976. Th is study, supported by a grant from the Exxon Education Foundation, investigated both twoand four-year institutions. Centra (1976) describes research that preceded his (e.g., Miller & Wilson, 1963; Eble, 1971; Freedman, 1973; the Group for Human Development in Higher Education, 1974; and Crow, Milton, Mooman, and O’Connell, 1976) but all appear to have focused solely on four-year institutions. National studies of faculty development done at community colleges have included: Centra (1976), Smith (1981), C ooper (1982), Bauske (1983), Dellamura (1986), Snyder (1988), Hoerner, Clowes, and Im para (1991), Hopple (1991), Murray (1999, 2001), and most recently Gr ant and Keim (2002). Smith (1981), to some exte nt, replicated Centra’s study but examined only twoyear colleges. Cooper (1982) id entified and evaluated needs a ssessment processes used to put together faculty development programs. Bauske (1983) investigated outcomes of faculty development programs. Dellamura (1986) presented seven principles

PAGE 53

42 characterizing effective faculty development programs, the methods used to implement those principles and how effective those met hods have been. Snyder (1988) surveyed the commonly offered faculty development pr actices and surveyed both faculty and administrators as to their perception of the most effective activity in improving instruction. Hoerner et al. (1991) focused specifically on the development needs of vocational faculty. Hopple (1991) studied the ex tent, nature, and eff ectiveness of faculty development policies, pro cedures, and practices. In fact, Murray conducted several studies two of which were national studies (1999, 2001) and three others that were statewide (1995, 1998, 2000). Grant and Keim’s (2002) research investigated f aculty development practices and identified the elements of planning, implementation, fundi ng, and evaluation. Given their importance to the field and the present investiga tion, each are described at greater length below. Most Notable National Studies Murray’s Studies and Limitations. A number of recent studies by John P. Murray investigated the elements of effective faculty development found at different populations of community colleges. The first of thes e studies was published in 1995 and looked at Ohio’s two-year colleges. Mu rray (1998) then replicated this study using New York’s two-year colleges. This study was subsequent ly replicated three more times by Murray, twice using National samples (1999, 2001), and then again in Texas two-year colleges (2000). Murray (1995, 1998, 1999, 2001) defines th e six elements of effective faculty development as: 1) institutional s upport – climate that fosters and encourages faculty

PAGE 54

43 development; 2) a formalized, structur ed, and goal-directed development program; 3) a connection between faculty development and the reward structure; 4) faculty owne rship; 5) support from colleagues for investment in teaching; and 6) a belief that good teaching is valued by administrators. In each of Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) four studies, he found very little evidence of his first element of effective faculty development which is providing institutional support or a climat e that fosters and encourages faculty development. In fact he found little evidence of a concerted e ffort to support and encourage faculty development except in the national study which suggests that the chief academic officers believe in their faculties’ teaching ability. Murray (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) found that the second element of effective faculty development, the existence of a form alized structured development program and practices, was similarly not met. Among the institutions surveyed across these five studies he found no college with a formalize d, structured program; most colleges relied on traditional yet unconnected practices. Connecting faculty development to the inst itution’s reward structure is the third element of effective faculty development. In this area, Murra y (1995, 1998) reported no connection present in the Ohio and New York studies while in the Texas (2000) and two National (1999, 2001) studies th ere were some efforts to make a connection by using student, peer, and administrativ e evaluations somewhat equally in promotion and tenure decisions. Overall, student evaluations played a lesser role than peer evaluations, and peer evaluations played a lesser role than administra tive evaluations. Murray (1999,

PAGE 55

44 2001) noted that administrators were less likely to have knowledge of professional and teaching accomplishments of the faculty but were more likely to have knowledge of service to the college, which is generally unrelated to teaching. The fourth element is faculty owne rship. In each of Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) studies he made similar conclusions regarding faculty ownership. He noted that faculty ownership cannot occur in an unstructured and leaderless program. The last two elements of effective facu lty development are colleague support for investment in teaching, and a belief that good teaching is valued by administrators. In all of Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) studies, th e chief academic officers stated that these existed. Throughout Murray’s research ( 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001), he reports respondents’ answered to “yes or no” questions to determine if one of the elements has been met. For example, to show institutiona l support, one of the questions that Murray asks is if the college provides sabbatical l eaves and asks, if so, who is eligible. This, however, seems to indicate a limitation in th at although a college may provide sabbatical leaves, they may not actually grant those l eaves. There are many other areas in Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) research where follow-up questions may reveal a conclusion contrary to what Murray reported. While the six categories Murray identifies appear to be worthwhile and based on sound research, there are many important ques tions that remain. For example, how does Murray specifically support inst itutional support of f aculty development? He refers to the notion that institutional mission statements should support faculty development but

PAGE 56

45 mission statements can change and may in fact not be completely forthright especially when looking at multiple campuses. For this reason, many institutions create very broad missions statements. Murray also connects instit utional support with a formal structured program yet fails to offer a clear definition of a formal structured program? Is it possible that loosely connected practices are percei ved by the institutions’ faculty as being effective and that a formally designated prog ram might be viewed by faculty as too rigid for their changing needs? The limitation of greatest concern rega rding these studies is “Who really answered Murray’s questionnaire ?” His instructions were se nt to the Chief Academic Officer and requested that the questionnaire be given to the person responsible for faculty development at the institution. In most cases this was the Chief Academic Officer or a faculty development practitioner. If the survey was to address effectiveness, why were faculty members’ perceptions left out of the equation? Grant and Keim’s Study and Limitations Another recent study, investigating the scope of faculty development programs, was done by Grant and Keim (2002) utilizi ng a national sample of two-year public colleges. Their study was de signed to investigate current practices in faculty developm ent, identify elements of planning, implementation, funding, and evaluation for development of both full-and part-time faculty in public community co lleges, and to compare the status of faculty development programs among colleges of different sizes and accreditation regions. (2002, p. 795)

PAGE 57

46 Grant and Keim (2002) concluded that formal faculty development programs appear to be in 90% of public community co lleges. They state that these programs are open to both fulland part-time faculty and are formalized, structured, and comprehensive. This is in contrast to prev ious research, includi ng Murray’s, that notes that programs are not comprehensive and comm only consist of a variety of individual practices not necessarily connect ed into an organized program. Grant and Keim’s findings indicate that there is an integration of professional, personal, curricular, and orga nizational goals within faculty development programs. In addition, organizational and cu rricular practices (e.g., new f aculty orientation, faculty handbooks, teaching networks, and student lear ning styles) were found to be the most common as opposed to the previous research fi ndings that reported sa bbatical leaves and travel funds as the most common. Personal development practices (e.g., interpersonal skills, stress management, and time manageme nt) seem to be increasing but would still not be considered common. Grant and Keim s uggest that community colleges “are as focused on institutional mission and teaching and learning in the classroom, as they are on enhancement of faculty knowledge” (2002, p. 802). Based upon their data, programs appear to be well funded and the type of program and the practices provided suggest that the c ontent is generated by faculty input and not mandated by administration. This observation is linked with their finding that intrinsic incentives are the most influential factor in continuing a program. Faculty are more likely to participate and contribute to the process if the reward system is largely internal. Yet, it is interesting that the resear chers also found that administra tors were more likely to run

PAGE 58

47 the programs than faculty members and where th ere is a faculty development coordinator, that person does not seem to ha ve much decision making power. Grant and Keim’s research supports previ ous research that in dicates a lack of formal evaluation of programs, and indeed they recommend such an evaluation process. They conclude that a formal, systematic approach to faculty development, with permanent funding, and administrative support is necessary to recruit and retain faculty. Individual State Studies Several statewide surveys of community college faculty development practices have been researched and reported. The focus of these studies varies and specific topics range from needs assessment to faculty perceptions of effective programs. For example, research on faculty development in two-year colleges in selected states can be summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Individual State Studies State Researcher and Date of Publication Alabama Boothe, 1981 California Breeden, 1989; Ashur, 1991; Raufman, 1991; Alfano, 1993a Florida Titlow, 1980; Byrd, 1985; Ellis, 1990; Rosenberger, 1991; Phillips, 2002 Illinois Sprague, 1980; Hansen, 1983; Kyge r, 1985; Giordano, 1989; Saret, 1993 Kansas Maneth, 1987 Mississippi White, 1977; Gill, 1993 New York Murray, 1998 North Carolina Ellerbe, 198 0; Langley, 1988; Taylor, 1988 Ohio Murray, 1995 Tennessee Lefler, 1998 Texas Caffey, 1978; McQueen, 1980; Paterno, 1994; Ellis, 1997 Washington Anderson, 1989

PAGE 59

48 Perceived Value of Faculty Development Faculty Approximately 25 years ago, Cohen a nd Brawer (1977) a nd Caffey (1979) reported that instructors’ preference for faculty development practices focused on furthering their knowledge with in their field. In fact, Bl ackburn, Pellino, Boberg, and O’Connell (1980) surmise from their research that faculty perceive keeping abreast of their discipline is the most important element of effective teaching. Thus, they wanted to take courses, accumulate credits, and earn de grees within their area of expertise and be released from some of their teaching duties or receive a sabbatical leave to do so. Cohen and Brawer (1977) found that less than 2% of faculty wa nted on-campus workshops. Blackburn et al. (1980) support the finding that leaves and grants are perceived by faculty to be most beneficial yet they found that faculty al so perceived workshops to be helpful in creating awareness about teachi ng. They additionally note that workshops provide a forum for faculty to interact, which can assist with the ch allenge of isolation noted earlier. Thus, “from the perspective of faculty, then, it is the other professional development needs – as well as some persona l ones – that faculty development programs need to focus on more” (p. 355). However, one year previous to Blackburn et al.’s work, Caffey (1979) found that faculty appear not to have an interest in “personal development, performance evaluation, increa sed group interaction, and overa ll institutional concerns” (p. 321). The difference could be due to the populations surveyed. Blackburn (1980) utilized four-year institutions and Caffey’ s (1979) feedback come from eight Texas community colleges. Blackburn’s faculty popu lation most likely had completed their

PAGE 60

49 terminal degrees and would be less interest ed in coursework th an Caffey’s population which coming from the community college populat ion is less likely to have their doctoral degrees. Caffey (1979) found that the most hi ghly valued goal for faculty was the improvement of teaching skills and appeared to be the goal most stressed by institutions. Additionally, Fugate and Amey’s (2000) st udy found that faculty development programs were perceived as an important component in th e ability to be an effective teacher. Their participants felt that faculty development was bo th an institutional as well as a personal responsibility. Faculty Development Practitioners In contrast to prior surveys of higher education administrato rs and faculty, little published research has been done to specifi cally assess the perceptions of faculty development practitioners. Historically, practitioners are more likely to be part of the administrative cohort, than they are to be faculty. With more institutions creating faculty development programs and centers, the unique ca reer of faculty development practitioner is being fashioned. In time, more research in th is area is likely to be done. At this time, Blackburn et al.’s (1980) research asserts that faculty developm ent practitioners appear to perceive that faculty development is synonymous with enhancing inst ructional skills and seems to exclude not only conten t specialization, but also any ot her aspect of the role of a faculty member. No mention is made as to whether those practitioners were drawn primarily from the ranks of administrato rs or from the ranks of faculty.

PAGE 61

50 Academic Administrators In contrast to what faculty members mo st wanted for faculty development, Cohen and Brawer (1977) indicated that administrators did not place emphasis on getting a higher degree but instead favored on-campus workshops and seminars to focus on the concerns of the community colle ge as pedagogy. This may in so me part be due to fiscal issues. Caffey’s (1979) research that focu sed on the faculty development goal preferences of faculty, found that what administrators va lued highly were those things relating to institutionwide concerns, while not surprising to some, these were the items that the faculty rated as least preferred. It is understandable that an institution would be preoccupied with having their faculty “familiar with its mission, policies, and procedures” (Caffey, 1979, p. 321). Nine years later, Snyder (1988) found that administrators and faculty similarly perceived several practices helped to improve instruction. These practices varied from an on-campus individualized activity where a master teacher served as a mentor, to group workshops on computer literacy and curriculum development, and also extended to practices requiring time away from campus such as returning-to-industry, sabbatical, release time, and travel funds. Snyder (1988) found the only difference in perceptions between faculty and administrators was with personal development practices (e.g., career planning, time management, stress management and wellness) where faculty perceived them to be effective and administrators did not.

PAGE 62

51 Important Questions That Remain From Caffey’s (1979) early research studies that contra st the views of faculty and administrators regarding the relative perceived value of specific faculty development practices distinct differences in the percepti ons of faculty and administrators regarding faculty development practices have been re ported. He reported that the discrepancy between the practices that the faculty desired and those that are offered are often quite large. There were faculty development practices that were available but not desired by the faculty (e.g., consultant visits to campus colleague observation and critique, formal evaluation of teaching by chair person or d ean, and student evaluation) and conversely there were practices that the f aculty desired and were either not available or not available to the degree that was desi red (e.g., financial support for advanced graduate study and release time for instructiona l development). Certainly, as Caffey (1979) points out, the discrepancy could be due to economics as the practices preferred by the faculty are often more costly. The discrepancies between faculty devel opment practices that are desired and those that are offered clearly provides a plat form for Nelson and Siegel’s (1980) assertion that for faculty development programs to be successful, faculty members need to be an integral part of the planning pr ocess. As noted earlier, this is also one of Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) elements of effective facu lty development, faculty ownership. Caffey (1979) also makes a similar concluding remark in his research and suggests that this factor does appear to support the use of individual development plans. These plans can be the key to understanding faculty’s indi vidual professional de velopment goals and

PAGE 63

52 to what faculty development practice best meet s their goals in order to have an effective faculty development program (Eleser & Ch auvin, 1998). In early research, Hammons, Smith, and Watts (1978) proposed that the id eal situation would be where faculty and institutional goals were independently dete rmined and then in individual meetings, specific goals would be created that include d both individual and organizational agreed upon concerns. Summary of Literature The published literature does not offer a single consensual definition of faculty development that scholars all agree on. Res earchers utilize their own terminology and delineate their own unique dimensions. Ther e does seems to be an emerging group of scholars who are taking a holistic or compre hensive approach to describing faculty development and that is the conceptual framework that the present study will employ. Thus, it the present study, the term faculty de velopment will refer any activity or practice in higher education that is dedicated to the on-going value of improved learning and teaching through faculty, instructional, curr icular, and organizational development. Faculty development supports and fosters improvement in higher education through human development that is “lifelong, holis tic, personal, and professional learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003). Historically, faculty development ha s emerged in response to the various challenges that society has placed on institut ions of higher educati on. Given the role of higher education to respond to the community and societal changes, the need for professional development programs to assist fa culty efforts has been firmly established.

PAGE 64

53 Previous statewide and national studie s of faculty development programs and practices offered at community colleges ha ve typically surveyed high-level academic administrators and or faculty developmen t practitioners. Few have systematically examined the views and perceptions of comm unity college faculty members as to the perceived value and effectiveness of faculty development practices. Insight into how faculty perceive faculty development was needed. This study will attempt to fill in that research gap.

PAGE 65

54 CHAPTER 3 Methods One purpose of this study was to examin e faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges and to determine if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty. A second purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty deve lopment practitione rs, and academic administrators in these institutions. A third purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of f aculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. This chapter describes the methods that we re utilized in this study. The research questions are presented first fo llowed by an overview of the re search design. This section describes the development of the instrument; the pilot study and the subsequent revisions made prior to the full study being implemente d; the data collection method for the full study; data analysis decisions that were made ; the procedures and de finitions employed to identify the respondents of the population; a nd response rate and demographics of the sample surveyed. Research Questions A web-based survey was used to investigate ea ch of the following six research questions:

PAGE 66

55 1. What faculty development practices have b een offered in the last three years to full-time faculty employed at Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges? 2. What is the relationship between the si ze of the full-time faculty population at each of Florida’s 22 public community colle ges and the total number of different faculty development practices offered at those institutions? 3. What is the relationship between the si ze of the full-time faculty population at each of Florida’s 22 public community colle ges and the total number of practices within each of six clusters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, educational resources)? 4. How are faculty development practices vi ewed in terms of perceived relative value by chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty? 5. What is the relationship between the pe rceived value of faculty development practices grouped in six clusters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, education resources) and chief acad emic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty? 6. What is the relationship between the pe rceived value of faculty development practices grouped in six clusters (i.e., general teaching enhancement practices, specialized programs, consultations, in centives and awards, time away from campus, education resources) and discipli ne of full-time faculty (i.e., natural

PAGE 67

56 sciences, mathematics and computer science, social sciences, humanities and arts, professions/occupational and applied scie nces, nursing and other allied health related fields)? Research Design The web-based questionnaire method of gather ing survey data was used as it provided several advantages in terms of economy, time, reduction of data entry error, and mass distribution. The savings in money are in th e form of the elimination of postage and stationary costs, as well as the low processing costs. Ti me savings occur at various points in a Web survey. Although the survey must be constructed, generally the time requirement to do this is far less than traditional publishing. E-mail delivery is almost immediate and therefore postal delivery time is omitted. The most beneficial time saver is also another benefit of web surveys, the reduc tion or complete elimination of data entry and the possibility of errors (Schmidt, 1997). One concern in utilizing e-mail and Web surv eys is coverage bias due to individuals not having access to the Internet or who choose not to access the Internet. This was not a specific concern for this study as Dillman (2000, p. 356) noted that there are “certain populations, such as university professors,” th at generally have an e-mail address and Internet access and that these populations pose only minor concerns in terms of coverage bias. Research on Internet-based survey research is scarce but a few studies have found that response rates are lower th an other traditional methods. To increase response rate an e-mail cover letter was used (Solomon, 2001). The e-mail contained a hyperlink where

PAGE 68

57 the respondent could directly link to the surv ey. Moreover, a follow-up email was sent to provide non-respondents a gentle reminder to respond. Development of Instrument The survey instrument used in this study was created after a thorough investigation of the literature. This literature provided a gr eat number of potential items for this instrument; in addition, several items were derived from Murray’s (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) research and were used with his permission. An additional source of items for this instrument was an unpublished survey produced by Eison and Sorcinelli (1999). The survey instrument (Appendix B) wa s created for the purpose of identifying the current faculty development practices a nd their perceived value. It contained 42 fixed-response items to improve the reliabil ity and consistency of the data. The 42 items were structurally arranged in to six clusters, with an a dditional section for comments. Items were clustered into the following si x areas: (1) general teaching enhancement practices (eight items), (2) specialized programs (eleven ite ms), (3) consultations (five items), (4) incentives and awards (nine items), (5) time away from campus (four items), and (6) educational resources (five items). Th ese six clusters each contained groupings of similar faculty development practices. For ex ample, the eight individual practices found in the first cluster, general teaching enhan cement practices, all relate directly to the improvement of teaching through a variety of delivery formats, ranging from workshops with in-house facilita tors to hosting a national teaching conference. Similarly, the five individual practices found in th e last cluster, educational resources, all pertain to physical

PAGE 69

58 or online documents and other faculty deve lopment materials that an institution may provide or loan to faculty members. Each item on the instrument identified a faculty development practice or opportunity that an institution might offer to its faculty. Some of these were currently occurring at particular institutions while others might suggest new ideas for faculty development that could have potential value. The respondents were asked to read through the list and indicate if their in stitution had offered the practice in the last three years by choosing either, (a) yes, ha s offered; (b) unsure/don’t know; or (c) no, not offered. The instrument also asked respondents to in dicate their view of the value of each practice to them regardless of whether their in stitution had offered the practice in the last three years. A modified Like rt type scale allowed a res pondent to choose one of five possible levels of value ra nging from 1 which represente d “no value” to 5 which represented “significant value”. This type of scale allowed a respondent to indicate on a continuum the extent to which they endorse ei ther a positive or favor able attitude toward the practice (i.e., having signifi cant value) or indicate a negative or unfavorable attitude toward the practice (i.e., havi ng no value) (Anderson, 1988). The traditional Likert scale utilizes the “unsure/don’t know” choice as a fulcrum in the continuum according to Anderson (1988) however it is neither an indication of agreement or disagreement. The decision was made to put the “unsure/don’t know” response to the right of the c ontinuum with a space in betwee n in an effort to have the respondent make a clear choice between indi cating their perceived value of a faculty development practice and utiliz ing the “unsure/don’t know” ca tegory if they were unable

PAGE 70

59 to rate the perceived value of the practice. It was hoped that the respondent would rate the perceived value of the practice, as an an swer of “unsure/don’t know” was treated as missing data. In total, the res pondents had six response options. At the end of the full-time faculty surv ey four demographic questions asked the respondent’s: (1) gender, (2) number of years te aching in higher education, (3) number of years at the present institution, and (4) disc ipline area. At the end of the CAO and FPD surveys, respondents were pres ented with the identical demo graphic questions presented to the full-time faculty and four additional demographic qu estions to collect background information on the FPD position. The purposes of these questions were to determine: (a) if there were individuals who assisted the person in charge of faculty development; (b) if the person in charge of faculty developmen t also taught classes; (c) if there was a recurring line item budget and if so if that budge t had changed in the la st three years; and (d) how they foresaw future al locations of funds for staff and program development after the deletion of the mandatory two percent a llocation requirement as designated in FAC 6A-14.0262. These demographic questions were used to help describe respondent characteristics within the three populations of full-time faculty, faculty development practitioners, and chief academic officers. In March of 2004, a preliminary inves tigation was conducted to examine and enhance the content validity of the survey instrument. This validation process consisted of email correspondences and phone interv iews with a small panel of faculty development experts consisting of four memb ers from the Board of Directors of The National Council for Staff, Program & Organizational Development (NCSPOD).

PAGE 71

60 NCSPOD is an affiliate council of the Amer ican Association of Community Colleges (AACC). NCSPOD provides services for its me mbers based on their mission which is to increase institutional vitality by providing pr ofessional growth opportunities for their members, while enabling them to establish, e nhance, and/or revitalize staff, program, and organizational development within their institutions. Each panel member from NCSPOD examined the survey instrument for clarity, possible points of ambiguity or omissions and provided input as to ad ditions or deletions from the survey. Upon completion of the interviews, the survey was revised to incorporate the information from the expert panel into the present survey instrument. Specifically, clusters were reorganized and renamed, and the practice of reassigned time for teaching improvement projects was adde d. Redundant items such as sabbaticals and faculty leaves were collapsed together. On ce these changes were made, University of South Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was received in July of 2004 in order to initiate the pilot study. Pilot Study The survey items were transformed into a web-based instrument. The programming was done by a computer cons ultant employed by Collegis, Inc who provided a computer consultant for technical assistance in creating the online version of the survey. To test the adequacy of the web programming, a small pilot study was conducted with a sample of 25 full-time faculty me mbers in the summer of 2004. The data collection methods for this p ilot study were as follows:

PAGE 72

61 1. The faculty in the pilot study received an email cover letter (see Appendix F). The email identified the researcher an d the purpose of the study. The email cover letter further indicated the appr oximate amount of time to complete the survey, the response deadline, contac t information, and a hyperlink to the online survey. The respondent clicke d on the hyperlink to respond to the survey. 2. When respondents clicked on the hype rlink they saw a short welcome statement and an indication of apprec iation for taking time to complete the survey (see Appendix B). The respondent was informed that the next portion of the survey would detail the required informed cons ent information, with the survey to follow. The respondent then c licked “continue” to move to the next screen where the informed consent information was presented. 3. After the respondent read and complete d the informed consent information (see Appendix B), the survey was displayed. 4. The first screen of the survey had the respondent identify his/her institutional affiliation and the campus to which he or she was primarily assigned (see Appendix B). 5. The survey (see Appendix B) was then displayed, and respondents were asked to respond to each of the 42 items. Following the listed practices, four demographic questions were asked to ascertain the respondent’s: (1) gender; (2) number of years teaching in higher education; (3) number of years at the present institution; and (4) discipli ne area. Once the respondents completed

PAGE 73

62 the survey they were be directed to click on the “submit” button. 6. A final screen thanking them for thei r participation then appeared (see Appendix B). 7. Immediately prior to the deadline to re spond, a reminder email was sent to the pilot study sample. This email (see Appendi x E) was sent to all respondents in the sample as information on the survey was anonymous and there was no way to know who responded previously. This email thanked those who had responded and asked those who had not yet responded to please respond by the stated deadline. This email again contained the necessary hyperlink to the survey. Data collection for this pilot study began with the distribution of the web-based survey (see Appendix B) by email in July of 2004 to 25 randomly selected full-time faculty members. Of the 25 full-time faculty in the pilot study sa mple, 21 responded for a response rate of 84%. The pilot group was also invited to later pa rticipate in a focus group to help identify any possible problem s or misunderstandings they had while completing the online survey. Upon completion of the focus group interviews, the survey was again revised to include the informa tion from the focus group. Specifically, the columns on each side of the 42 items were sw itched so that respondents first rated the value of a practice and then indicated if the practice was offered at their institution in the past three years. These changes were delinea ted and sent to IRB for approval, which was secured in November of 2004 before the full study was implemented. During the pilot study, the da ta collection process we nt smoothly and without

PAGE 74

63 problems. The collected data from these 21 respondents were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Scie nces (SPSS) Graduate Pack 13.0 for Windows (2004). For internal consistency, Cronbach’s coefficient alphas were determined for the clusters to see if items were similar enough to be grouped. The respondents’ relative perceived value rating of items within the cl usters indicated that there was a high degree of homogeneity of items as detailed in Ta ble 4. The reliabilities ranged from .75 (Time Away From Campus) to .94 (Specialized Programs). Table 4 Cronbach’s Alphas for the Six Clusters of Faculty Development Practices(n=21) Cluster Number of items Cronbach’s alpha General Teaching Enhancement Practices 8 .82 Specialized Programs 11 .94 Consultations 5 .83 Incentives and Awards 9 .88 Time Away from Campus 4 .75 Educational Resources 5 .89 Additional analysis included descriptive statistics to summarize the practices offered at the pilot study inst itution and the perceived relati ve value of these practices. With only one response group, further anal ysis could not be done. Thus, with no difficulties in statistical analysis detected, the full study was begun. Full Study Collection of Data Immediately following the completion of the pilot study, the full study began in November of 2004. The data collection met hods for the study were as follows: 1. An email was sent to all 3,707 email addresses of all full-time faculty members of Florida’s 22 public comm unity colleges. This email (see

PAGE 75

64 Appendix D) identified the researcher and the purpose of the study. The email cover letter further indicated the appr oximate amount of time to complete the survey should take, the response deadline, contact information, and a hyperlink to the online survey. The re spondent clicked on the hyperlink to respond to the survey. 2. An email was also sent to each CAO. Their email cover letter was identical to the one sent to the full-time faculty except for the hyperlink. The difference in the hyperlink is discussed in Step 7. The respondent clicked on the hyperlink to respond to the survey. 3. An email was also sent to each FDP. Th eir email cover letter was identical to the one sent to the full-time faculty except for the hyperlink. The difference in the hyperlink is discussed in Step 7. The respondent clicked on the hyperlink to respond to the survey. 4. When respondents clicked on the hype rlink they saw a short welcome statement and an indication of apprec iation for taking time to complete the survey (see Appendix B). The respondent was informed that the next portion of the survey would detail the required informed consent information with the survey to follow. The respondent then c licked “continue” to move to the next screen where the informed consent information was presented. 5. After the respondent read and complete d the informed consent information (see Appendix B), the survey was displayed. 6. The first screen of the survey had the respondent identify his/her institutional

PAGE 76

65 affiliation and the campus to which they were primarily assigned (see Appendix B). 7. The survey (see Appendix B) was then displayed, and respondents were asked to respond to each of the 42 items. Follo wing the listed practices, the full-time faculty were presented with four de mographic questions (see Appendix B): asking the respondent’s: (a) gender; (b) number of y ears teaching in higher education; (c) number of years at the present institution; and (d) discipline area. The CAO and FPD respondents we re presented with the identical demographic questions presented to the full-time faculty and in addition, three more demographic questions designed to collect background information on the FPD position (see Appendix B). These que stions were used to determine: (a) if there were individuals who assi sted the person in charge of faculty development; (b) if there was a recurri ng line item budget and if that budget had changed in the last thr ee years; and (c) if the pe rson in charge of faculty development also taught classes. On ce the respondent had completed the survey he or she was directed to click on the “submit” button. 8. A final screen thanking them for thei r participation then appeared (see Appendix B). 9. Immediately prior to the deadline to re spond, a reminder email was sent to all respondents. This email (see Appendix E) was sent to all respondents in the study as information on the survey was anonymous and there was no way to know who responded previously. This email thanked those who had

PAGE 77

66 responded and asked those who had not yet responded to please respond by the stated deadline. This email again contained the necessary hyperlink to the survey. Population and Sample The population for this study consisted of th ree unique subsets of Florida’s public community college employees: chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners and full-time faculty members. The Florida Community College System (FCCS) Fact Book (2004) lists 28 public community co lleges. The FCCS started with the creation of the first community college in 1933 and the most recently established in 1972. As of the 2004-2005 academic year, five of thes e institutions, Chipola College, Edison College, Miami-Dade College, Okaloosa-Walton College, and St. Petersburg College received authorization from the State Bo ard of Education “to deliver specified baccalaureate degree programs in its district to meet local workforce needs” (State of Florida, 2003). Since these institutions now offer baccalaureate degrees, they were eliminated from the population of the study as they are no longer o fficially considered community colleges. Although the Legislature stated that these in stitutions “may not terminate its associate in arts or associat e in science degree programs” and “that the primary mission of a community college…con tinues to be the pr ovision of associate degrees” (State of Florida, 2003), these four in stitutions in fact changed their name from a ‘community college’ to a ‘col lege’ as per the accreditation principles of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (2004). For this study, a sixth institution, Indian River Community College, was removed

PAGE 78

67 from the overall population of 28 community colleges per the chief academic officer’s request. In August and September 2004 the co llege was hit by two separate hurricanes just as the academic year was getting underw ay and they suffered considerable damage. The chief academic officer and faculty had their hands full making up for lost classroom time and they needed to focus only on critical needs. It was for this reason that this institution was pulled from th e population under investigation. The remaining 22 Florida public commun ity colleges provided the population under investigation. The first sub-group of re spondents in this study was comprised of the chief academic officers (CAO) from each of the 22 Florida public community colleges. For purposes of clarity and consistency in language across these 22 diverse community colleges, the CAO was defined as the individual appointed by the institution’s president as the primary contact and th e voting member to the Council on Instructional Affairs for the 2004-2005 academic year. The Council on Instru ctional Affairs (CIA ) is part of the Florida Community College System which is a division of the Florida Department of Education. The council is comprised of the ex ecutive level instruc tional leaders (e.g., academic vice presidents, deans and provosts) from each of Florida’s public community colleges. As the council includes various le vel instructional lead ers, designating the presidentially appointed voting member of the Council as the chief academic officer, allowed for a uniform definition (Council on Instructional Affairs, 1999). Of the 22 individual CAOs, 18 (82%) responded to the web survey after being contacted several times (see Table 5).

PAGE 79

68 Table 5 Chief Academic Officer’s Demographics (n = 18) Demographic Variable Full-time Faculty Frequency% Number of years teaching in higher education None 0 0 Less than 1 year 0 0 1-3 years 0 0 4-6 years 1 6 7-9 years 0 0 10-19 years 4 22 20-29 years 9 50 30 or more years 4 22 Length of time at your current institution Less than 1 year 2 11 1-3 years 2 11 4-6 years 2 11 7-9 years 3 17 10-19 years 4 22 20 or more years 5 28 The respondent group of 18 included 9 (50%) males and 9 (50%) females. According to the data in Table 4, the number of years teaching in higher education ranged from only 6% in the early part of their ca reers having less than 10 years experience, to 22% in their mid-careers with between 10 and 19 years experience, and 72% of the CAOs in the senior stage of their careers with more than 20 years of teaching experience. Interestingly but perhaps not surprisingly, alt hough the vast majority of CAOs are in the senior part of their career, 50% have been at their current institution for less than ten years. The remaining CAOs are roughly split in their length of service at their current institution with 22% having between 10 and 19 years of longevity and 28% of the CAOs being very much a part of the history of their institution with more than 20 years of service.

PAGE 80

69 The second sub-group of respondents was comprised of the individuals most directly responsible for faculty development c oordination at each of the 22 Florida public community colleges. Each of the CAOs was c ontacted via email and asked to provide the name of the individual at the institution w ho was most directly responsible for faculty development at his or her institution (see A ppendix A). The person identified by the CAO was then referred to as the faculty developm ent practitioner (FDP), regardless of his or her actual position title at th e institution. This distinction wa s made as institutions often divide faculty development practices acro ss several different functional units (e.g., human resources, academic affairs, institutional advancement). The individuals identified by the CAOs were designated as the FDPs unless the CAO named him or herself as the person most directly responsible for faculty development, in which case that particular institution did not have a uniquely identif ied FDP. The 18 chief academic officers identified 16 individuals who held this pos ition on their campuses; 8 (50%) of these individuals responded to the multiple distributions of the web survey. In Table 6, data are presented from the 8 (50%) faculty development practitioners who responded. Two were males (25%) and 6 (75%) were females. The respondents’ number of years teaching in higher educa tion was roughly split between three (38%) in the junior part of their career s with nine or fewer years ex perience, two (25%) mid-career individuals with between 10 and 19 years experi ence, and two (25%) in their senior part of their career with more than 20 years. The length of time at their current institution for the faculty development practitioners was near ly equally divided w ith three individuals (38%) with less than three y ears at their institution, th ree individuals having (38%)

PAGE 81

70 between 10 and 19 years, and two individua ls (25%) with more than 20 years. Table 6 Faculty Development Practitioner’s Demographics (n = 8) Demographic Variable Full-time Faculty Frequency% Number of years teaching in higher education None 0 0 Less than 1 year 0 0 1-3 years 1 13 4-6 years 0 0 7-9 years 2 25 10-19 years 2 25 20-29 years 1 13 30 or more years 1 13 Length of time at your current institution Less than 1 year 0 0 1-3 years 0 0 4-6 years 2 25 7-9 years 1 13 10-19 years 3 38 20 or more years 2 25 The third and final sub-group of respondent s were the full-time faculty members from each of the 22 Florida public co mmunity colleges. According to the FCCS Fact Book (2004), Florida’s 22 public community colleges employed 3,541 full-time instructional personnel in the Fall of 2003. Th is document unfortunately does not contain current email for the full-time faculty members of each institution; therefore, in January, 2004, a list was compiled of email addresses of Florida’s full-time community college faculty from the web sites of 18 of 22 Florida public community colleges. Where no online list was available, a list was provide d to the author by the remaining four institutions. When the online information wa s combined with the institution provided information, a list of 3,707 email addresses wa s created. This number is 10% higher than

PAGE 82

71 the 3,541 full-time instructiona l personnel reported in the FCCS Fact Book (2003). This discrepancy was produced by two di fferent factors relating to the FCCS Fact Book. First, the data in the 2003 FCCS Fact Book are based on Fall 2002 annual personnel reports and therefore changes in the number of full-time faculty were caused by attrition and new hires. The second factor producing the di sparity was created by a difference in definitions. The FCCS uses the term “full-time instructional personnel” rather than fulltime faculty. Institutions may include librarian s and counselors in thei r count of full-time faculty at the institutional level but onl y report faculty members to the state. After several distribu tions of the web survey, a total of 408 faculty or an 11% return rate was achieved. Individual institu tional response rates for the 22 institutions can be found in Table 7. Six instit utions had a response rate of less than 10%. These institutions were both large and small in si ze ranging from 53 full-time faculty members to a high of 353 full-time faculty members. F our institutions achieve d a response rate of 20% or more. These institutions tended to be smaller in size with three institutions having 57 or fewer full-time faculty members and one institution having just over 100 full-time faculty members. Only full-time faculty were surveyed in this study as full-time faculty are generally the principal clientel e of faculty development. Publ ished literature supports this approach by noting that full-time faculty are the primary consumer for faculty development practices (Alfano, 1993b). While some institutions invite part-time faculty to participate in many of th eir faculty development practic es, widespread attendance by part-time instructors is not common pr actice. In addition, many other faculty

PAGE 83

72 development practices are commonly restri cted to only full-time instructors (e.g., sabbatical, travel funds, tuition reimbursement, etc.). Table 7 Institutional Response Rate and Percentage of Population Institution n Responding % Response 1 30 15 2 10 3 3 21 19 4 21 9 5 24 7 6 6 26 7 6 7 8 32 14 9 3 6 10 14 25 11 27 24 12 3 12 13 31 13 14 10 12 15 31 15 16 17 18 17 36 13 18 11 6 19 11 20 20 8 11 21 16 10 22 40 12 Total Faculty 408 11.0 Note Total number of full-time faculty at each institution was determined by utilizing the number of full-time inst ructional personnel as indicated in the Florida Community College System Fact Book (2004). Full-time faculty were also used in de termining the size of an institution. The rationale for employing this approach to de scribing institutional size was based on the concept of critical mass. The larger the fulltime faculty, the greater the likelihood that a significant number would participate in th e faculty development activities offered regardless of longevity in teaching or institutional affiliation (see Table 8). Spending

PAGE 84

73 funds on an activity that is mo re likely to have greater par ticipation would seem to be a rational use of limited institutional funds Also, Rosenberger (1993) found that institutionalization of faculty development is not related to the size of the institution when student population was used as the unit of measurement. Table 8 Full-time Faculty’s Demographics (n = 408) Demographic Variable Full-time Faculty Frequency% Number of years teaching in higher education None 0 0 Less than 1 year 4 1 1-3 years 31 8 4-6 years 51 13 7-9 years 33 8 10-19 years 134 33 20-29 years 93 23 30 or more years 50 12 Length of time at your current institution Less than 1 year 17 4 1-3 years 73 18 4-6 years 66 16 7-9 years 50 12 10-19 years 102 25 20 or more years 88 22 Table 8, presents some of the demogr aphic data of the third sub-group of respondents which were 408 full-time facu lty members from the 22 Florida public community colleges. This sample consisted of 140 males (34%) a nd 255 females (63%); 13 chose not to indicate their gender. The fu ll-time faculty were also almost evenly divided in terms of their st age of career development. There were 119 (29%) junior faculty members, 134 (33%) mid-career facult y, and 143 (35%) senior faculty members. Although the longevity of their careers was almost evenly di vided, the majority (51%) of

PAGE 85

74 these full-time faculty have been employed at their institution for nine or fewer years. The remaining 190 faculty were divided virtua lly in half with 102 (25%) having been at their institution for between 10 and 19 years, and the remaining 88 (22%) with more than 20 years work experience at their current institutions. Even though the data on the respondents’ di scipline area have been analyzed only for the faculty in research question number six (i.e., to protect the anonymity of the CAOs and FDPs), it is interesting to note the differences in discipline areas for both the CAO and FPD populations (see Table 9). Examini ng the discipline area data to which the respondents were most closely assigned reveal ed that all three sub-groups were largely from the same discipline area. Among the f aculty respondents, 28% indicated that they were in the humanities and arts. Similarly, 28% of the CAOs and 38% of the FDPs also indicated that the humanities and arts were their discipline area. Table 9 Respondent’s Academic Discipline Area Discipline Faculty n =408 Chief Academic Officer n =18 Faculty Development Practitioner n =8 Frequency% Frequency% Frequency % Natural Sciences 34 8 4 22 0 0 Mathematics/Computer Sciences 51 13 1 6 2 25 Social Sciences 53 13 2 11 1 13 Humanities/Arts 116 28 5 28 3 38 Professions/Occupational 55 14 1 6 2 25 Nursing/Allied Health 84 21 0 0 0 0 Data Analysis Decisions After the data collection pe riod had ended, an initial inve stigation of the data was

PAGE 86

75 done using SPSS (2004). With respect to ratings of the percei ved value of the 42 faculty development practices, response 1 (representi ng no value) to response 5 (representing significant value) were treated as valid responses whereas an “unsure/don’t know” response was treated as missing data. On th e other hand when indicating if a faculty development practice was offered the response “yes, offered” was coded as “1” the response “unsure/don’t know” was coded as “2” and the response “no” was coded as “3”. An initial exploration of the data highlight ed several unique problems that led to a series of decisions by the inve stigator regarding how the data could best be analyzed to address each of the six specific research que stions under examination. The first difficulty identified was that although 16 individuals were identified by the CAOs as faculty development practitioners (F DP), only eight responded to the survey after several contacts. Since this would limit the scope of th e research to only those eight institutions with responding faculty developm ent practitioners, the first da ta analysis decision was to only use the FPD responses’ when analyzing research question number four examining each of the three groups’ perceived relative value of 42 faculty development practices. This was not considered a major problem b ecause the CAOs perceived relative value of the items could still be compared to the responses provided by full-time faculty. With the faculty development practitione rs’ data removed for five of the six research questions, data provided by the chie f academic officers’ and full-time faculty data were examined closely. These data also highlighted possible analysis problems. An attempt to analyze the first research questi on, which looks at whethe r or not 42 specific faculty development practices were offered at each institution, turned out to be a

PAGE 87

76 surprisingly difficult task. It appeared that a widespread lack of agreement existed between faculty members and their CAOs on whether specific faculty development practices were in fact offered on each campus. As stated earlier, for purposes of clarity and consistency in language across these 22 diverse community colleges, the chief academ ic officer was defined as the individual appointed by the institution’s president as the primary contact and the voting member to the Council on Instructional Affairs for the 2004-2005 academic year. The individuals on this council, the CAOs, are ultimately responsible for implementing faculty development programs at each of their respective institutio ns. Additionally, until July 2004, the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) 6A-14.029 on sta ff and program development stated that each institution must provide accountability through an annual report submitted to the State Board of Community Colleges descri bing how staff and program funds were expended, a description of the programs impr oved/initiated, the number of respondents in staff development activities, and an evaluation of the effectiveness in relation to college policies (FAC, 1995). Since the CAOs generated this report, their responses were deemed the most reliable source of reporting the exis tence of a particular faculty development practice at their institution. Thus, the second data analys is decision made was to us e the CAOs responses to analyze the first three research questions as they each refere nced the existence of faculty development practices available at a partic ular institution. Full-time faculty responses were, however, analyzed and presented in th is chapter to provide a more detailed discussion of the data. These two data anal ysis decisions were made to adequately

PAGE 88

77 analyze the data collected in an attempt to be st address each of the research questions as written. The discovery of the complexity of the data in fact illuminated several methodological concerns that wi ll be discussed in Chapter 5. An internal consistency estimate of relia bility was computed on each of the six clusters of practices within the instrument to determine if further analysis based upon these groupings was appropriate. This analys is was done utilizing the data provided by the entire full-time faculty population ( n =408). The test analyzed each faculty member’s relative perceived value ratings of the 42 specific items th at had been structurally arranged into six clusters of similar practices. These tests indicated that the internal consistency for the six clusters of faculty development practices were: (a) General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Cronbach’s alpha = .874; (b) Specialized Programs, Cronbach’s alpha = .875; (c) Consultations, Cr onbach’s alpha = .781; (d) Incentives and Awards = .849; (e) Time Away from Campus = .831; and (f) Educational Resources = .878. A detailed description of each of the Cr onbach’s alpha analysis can be found in Table 10. The coefficient alphas suggest that the scale scores reported here indicate sufficient internal consistency within each of the six clusters of faculty development practices to conduct further analysis of the data using these six clusters. Table 10 Cronbach’s Alphas for the Six Clusters of Faculty Development Practices(n=408) Cluster Number of items Cronbach’s alpha General Teaching Enhancement Practices 8 .874 Specialized Programs 11 .875 Consultations 5 .781 Incentives and Awards 9 .849 Time Away from Campus 4 .831 Educational Resources 5 .878

PAGE 89

78 With sufficient internal consistency within each of the six cluste rs, the analysis of research questions five and si x was conducted by first computi ng a single mean score for each cluster per individual respondent. For each of these mean scores to be calculated, the respondent needed to respond to a minimum number of questions in each of the six clusters. The following were the minimum items that needed to be responded to: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, five of ei ght items; Specialized Programs, seven of eleven items; Consultations, three of five ite ms; Incentives and Awards, six of nine items; Time Away from Campus, two of four items; and Educational Resources, was calculated when the respondent answered at least two of five items. Because faculty were nested within comm unity colleges, the effect that this clustering or nesting may have had on indi vidual respondent answers was taken into account by calculating the intr aclass correlation (ICC). The ICC analysis provided the necessary information to determine if observa tions were independent of the institutional groupings as it measures relative homogeneity within groups in ratio to the total variation. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was utilized to examine the relationships of faculty discipline and perceived value of faculty development pr actices grouped in six clusters because full-time faculty respondent s were nested within their institutions.

PAGE 90

79 CHAPTER 4 Results One purpose of this study was to examin e faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges and to determine if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty. A second purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty deve lopment practitione rs, and academic administrators in these institutions. A third purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of f aculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. This chapter provides the analysis of da ta results for each of the six research questions. This chapter concludes with a summary of the key findings. Research Question 1: Faculty Development Pr actices Offered in the Last Three Years The first research question investigated the specific faculty development practices that were offered in the last three years to full-time faculty employed by Florida’s 22 public community colleges. As noted earlier, only the data from the CAOs of 18 institutions were used to an alyze this first research ques tion. A frequency distribution was created and the resulting information was th en rank ordered from the highest number of institutions offering the practi ce to the lowest. Table 11 presen ts the rank order of each of

PAGE 91

80 the 42 faculty development practices surveyed. Table 11 Number and Percent of Institutions Offering Practice Per Chief Academic Officer (n=18) Faculty Development Practice Frequency % Teaching improvement events usin g in-house facilitators. 18 100.0 Discussions on teaching-related issues (e.g brown bag lunches, topical discussion groups). 18 100.0 Technology workshops for enhancing inst ruction or online teaching. 18 100.0 New faculty orientation, t eaching enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school. 18 100.0 Tuition assistance for faculty. 18 100.0 Funds for travel to professional conferences. 18 100.0 Teaching improvement events using natio nally recognized speakers. 17 94.4 Workshops for personal development, such as, interpersonal skills training, stress management, time management, and retirement planning. 17 94.4 Mentoring program for newly-hired faculty. 17 94.4 Assistance with library research, intern et research, citation formatting, and statistical analysis for publication. 17 94.4 Course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects. 17 94.4 Collaborative work groups on campus to facilitate enhanced student learning (e.g. Student Affairs, Departments, and Technical support working together). 16 88.9 Voluntary in-class teaching observations with follow-up feedback. 16 88.9 Assistance with external grant writing activities. 16 88.9 Salary or rank advancement for completion of graduate, and under certain conditions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advancing their knowledge in their field. 16 88.9 Faculty leaves or sa bbaticals. 16 88.9 Outstanding teaching awar ds program. 15 83.3 Faculty development training workshops for department chairpersons. 14 77.8 Consultations available to answer teachin g related questions and concerns. 14 77.8 Faculty grants program to support the purchase of research materials and equipment or instructional materials. 14 77.8 Incentives to encourage fa culty to do research that might lead to grants, publications, or conference presentations. 13 72.2 Lending library of faculty development resources (e.g. books, journals, newsletters, videotapes). 13 72.2 Off-campus teaching improvement retreats. 12 66.7 Collaborative faculty development activities with other institutions. 12 66.7 Website containing faculty development materials. 12 66.7 Publish or disseminate newsletters on teaching. 11 61.1 Release program to work in industry. 10 55.6 Resource guide containing valuable information about teaching and learning unique to the institution. 10 55.6 Career development program fo r mid-career faculty. 9 50.0 Online or videotaped self-paced faculty development programs or materials. 9 50.0 Faculty book club focusing on texts re lated to teaching and learning. 8 44.4 Program on preparing a teaching or promotion portfolio. 8 44.4 Professional renewal program for senior faculty. 8 44.4

PAGE 92

81 Table 11 (continued). Campus-wide teaching conference (one to three days in length). 7 38.9 Classroom videotaping services with follow-up feedback. 7 38.9 Salary or rank advancement for completion of on/off campus seminars, workshops, or conferences. 6 33.3 Teaching fellowship program (semeste r or year in length). 6 33.3 Intensive summer institutes (three to ten days in length). 5 27.8 Hosting a regional or national teaching conference. 5 27.8 Requiring either a graduate credit-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equivalent non-credit-bearing course provided by your institution. 5 27.8 Salary or rank advancement for completion of recognized work experience, travel experience, and other professional activities related to their teaching. 5 27.8 Exchange program with faculty at another institution. 5 27.8 The data in Table 11 indicate that six pract ices have been offered by all 18 of the institutions within the past three year s. These practices included: a) teaching improvement events using in-house facilitators ; b) discussions on teaching-related issues; c) technology workshops for enhancing instru ction or online teaching; d) new faculty orientation, teaching enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school; e) tuition assistance for faculty; and f) funds for travel to professional conferences. Moreover, five additional practices (i.e., t eaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers; workshops for personal de velopment, such as, interpersonal skills training, stress management, time manageme nt, and retirement planning; mentoring program for newly-hired faculty; assistance wi th library research, internet research, citation formatting, and statistical analysis for publication; and course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects) were offered by 17 of the 18 institutions. An additional five practices ( i.e., collaborative work groups on campus to facilitate enhanced studen t learning; voluntary in-class teaching observations with follow-up feedback; assistance wi th external grant writing activities; salary or rank

PAGE 93

82 advancement for completion of graduate, a nd under certain cond itions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advancing their knowledge in their field; and faculty leaves or sabbaticals) were similarly provided by 16 of the 18 instituti ons. Thus, 16 faculty development practices were offered by nearly 90% of the 18 Florid a community colleges participating in this study. As also revealed in Table 11, far less common faculty development practices included: a) intensive summer institutes; b) hosting a regional or national teaching conference; c) requiring a cour se on “College Teaching”; d) salary or rank advancement for completion of recognized experience; a nd e) exchange program with faculty at another institution. These five practices were offered by only five institutions in this study. The relative frequencies with which the remaining 21 faculty development practices have been offered by Florida’s comm unity colleges over the past three years is reported in Table 11. It is interesting to not e that many of these practices found in the middle of the relative frequency distribution are those that coul d be offered at little or no cost to the institution. These practices and their corresponding relative frequency include: outstanding teaching awards program (15); c onsultations available to answer teaching related questions and concerns (14); lending library of faculty development resources (e.g., books, journals, newsletters, videotapes ) (13); collabo rative faculty development activities with other institu tions (12); website containing faculty development materials (12); publish or disseminate newsletters on teaching (11); resource guide containing valuable information about teaching and lear ning unique to the inst itution (10); online or

PAGE 94

83 videotaped self-paced faculty development pr ograms or materials (9); and program on preparing a teaching or promotion portfolio (8). In summary, according to the CAOs of 18 of 22 Florida’s public community colleges, of the 42 faculty development pr actices identified by the survey, no one institution offered all 42 pract ices. One institution offered thei r faculty 41 of the practices and two institutions offered their faculty 40 pr actices. Of the 42 practices identified, the least number of practices offered at one in stitution was 19. As indicated by the CAOs, 15 or 36% of 42 possible faculty development pr actices were offered to full-time faculty within the past three years at 16 of the 18 (89%) institutions. During the same period, there were only five faculty development pr actices that were offered by five (26%) of these 18 institutions. Research Question 2: Relationship Between Full-time Faculty Population and Total Number of Practices The second research question focused on th e relationship between the size of the institution, as determined by the total numbe r of full-time faculty employed at that institution, and the total number of the 42 separate faculty development practices offered at that institution. As noted earlier, only th e data from the CAOs of 18 institutions were used to analyze this second research question. Institutional size was determined by the si ze of the full-time faculty population as indicated in the FCCS Fact Book (2003). The largest instit ution analyzed employed 353 full-time faculty members and the smallest institution employed 32 full-time faculty members. Total number of faculty developm ent practices offered at each of the

PAGE 95

84 institutions ranged from a high of 41 to a low of 19 (see Figure 1). To get a rich descriptive pi cture of the nature of the relationship between the total number of faculty development practices per institution and the size of the institution as indicated by number of full-time faculty a scatterplot (Figure 1) was created. Inspection of this scatterplot did not visibly indicate a strong or linear relationship. Figure 1 Relationship between the size of the fu ll-time faculty population and the total number of practices offered. A Person’s product moment coefficient wa s computed between the total number of faculty development practices per institution and the size of the institution as indicated by number of full-time faculty. A correla tion of .365 was obtained. Squaring this 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 40 35 30 25 20 R 2 = 0.133 Total Number of Practices

PAGE 96

85 correlation coefficient reveals the explained va riance between the two variables. In this instance, 13% of the variability in the tota l number of practices was accounted for by the variability of institutional size. This rela tionship was not statistically significant ( p > .05). Thus, while some might speculate that instit utions with larger faculties would offer a larger number of faculty pr ofessional development opportuni ties then inst itutions with fewer faculty, the results clearly do not support this belief. The four institutions with the smallest number of faculty had a mean of 22.3 faculty professional development practices offered while the four institutions with the largest number of faculty had a mean of 28.0 faculty professional development practices offered. Research Question 3: Relationship Be tween Full-time Faculty Population and Total Number of Practices in Clusters The third research question focused on th e relationship between the size of the institution, as determined by the total numbe r of full-time faculty employed at that institution, and the total number of faculty development practices within each of six clusters offered at that institution. As noted earlier, only the data from the CAOs of 18 institutions were used to analyze this th ird research question. The largest institution analyzed employed 353 full-time faculty member s and the smallest institution employed 32 full-time faculty members. Only one significant relationship was di scovered in the analysis of the six clusters. This was the relationship between institutional size and General Teaching Enhancement Practices. General Teaching Enhancement Practices contained the following eight practices: teaching improveme nt events using in -house facilitators;

PAGE 97

86 teaching improvement events using nationa lly recognized speakers; discussions on teaching-related issues (e.g., brown bag lunche s, topical discussion groups); faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning; offcampus teaching improvement retreats; campus-wide teaching conference (one to three days in length); intensive summer institutes (three to ten days in lengt h); and hosting a regiona l or national teaching conference. The total number of faculty development practic es offered at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 8 to a low of 3. Figure 2 Total number of General Teaching Enha ncement Practices in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty. 8 7 6 5 4 3 R 2 = 0.285Total Number of General Teaching Enhancement Practices

PAGE 98

87 To get a rich descriptive picture of the nature of the relationship between the total number of General Teaching Enhancement Pract ices per institution and the size of the institution as indicated by number of fulltime faculty a scatterplot (Figure 2) was created. Inspection of this scat terplot suggested a moderately strong linear relationship. A Pearson’s product moment coefficient was computed between th e total number of General Teaching Enhancement Practices per in stitution and the size of the institution. A correlation of .534 was obtained. Squaring th is correlation coefficient reveals the explained variance between the two variables. In this instance, 29% of the variability in the total number of General Teaching Enha ncement Practices was accounted for by the variability of institutional size. This relati onship was statistically significant at the p < .05 level. Although the analysis of the remaining fi ve clusters indicated no significant relationships, a brief discussion of the findings is relevant. The total number of practices offered in Specialized Programs (e.g., technolog y workshops, new faculty orientation) at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 11 to a low of 5. Inspection of the scatterplot (Figure 3) created did not visibl y suggest a linear relati onship and the obtained correlation was .255. Only 6% of the variability in the tota l number of practices in Specialized Programs can be accounted for by th e variability of institutional size. This relationship was not stat istically significant ( p> .05).

PAGE 99

88 Figure 3 Total number of practices in Specialized Programs in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. The analysis of Consultations (e.g., c onsultations, voluntary in-class teaching observations) indicated that the total number of faculty develo pment practices at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 5 to a low of 1. Examination of the scatterplot in Figure 4 did not visibly suggest a linear relationship and th e obtained correlation was .194. Thus, for Consultations, 4% of the variabilit y in the total number of practices can be accounted for by the variability of institutional size. The relationship was not statistically significant ( p > .05). 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 R 2 = 0.065 Total Practices in Specialized Programs

PAGE 100

89 Figure 4 Total number of practices in Consulta tions in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. The total number of faculty developm ent practices offered in Incentives and Awards (e.g., tuition assistance, course reductions) at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 9 to a low of 4. Inspection of the s catterplot (Figure 5) cr eated did not visibly suggest a linear relationship and the obtained correlati on was .106. Only 1% of the variability in the total number of practices in Incentives and Awards can be accounted for by the variability of institutional size. This relationship was not statistically significant ( p> .05). 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 5 4 3 2 1 R 2 = 0.037 Total Practices in Consultations

PAGE 101

90 Figure 5 Total number of practices in Incentives and Awards in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. The analysis of Time Away From Campus (e.g., teaching fellowship, sabbaticals) indicated that the total number of faculty deve lopment practices at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 4 to a low of 0. It s hould be noted that Time Away From Campus was the only cluster in which there was an inst itution that did not offer any of the faculty development practices assigned to this cluste r. Additionally, the institution that did not offer any of the practices within this cluster was one of the smallest institutions in this research study. Examination of the scatterplot in Figu re 6 did not visibl y suggest a linear relationship and the obtained correlation wa s .355. Thus, for Time Away From Campus, 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 9 8 7 6 5 4 R 2 = 0.011 Total Practices in Incentives and Awards

PAGE 102

91 13% of the variability in the total number of practices can be accounted for by the variability of institutional size. The rela tionship was not statistically significant ( p > .05). Figure 6 Total number of practices in Time Away From Campus in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. The total number of faculty developm ent practices offered in Educational Resources (e.g., website, lending library, resour ce guide) at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 5 to a low of 0. Inspecti on of the scatterplot (F igure 7) created did not visibly suggest a linear re lationship and the obtained correlation was .261. Only 7% of the variability in the total number of practices in Educational Resources can be accounted for by the variability of institutional size. This relationship was not statistically 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 4 3 2 1 0 R 2 = 0.126 Total Practices in Time Awa y From Cam p us

PAGE 103

92 significant ( p> .05). Figure 7 Total number of practices in Educational Resources in relation to the size of the institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty. Research question three wa s designed to detect any re lationship that might exist between the size of the institution, as determin ed by the total number of full-time faculty employed at that institution, and the total numbe r of faculty developm ent practices within each of six clusters offered at that instituti on. Of the six clusters analyzed, only General Teaching Enhancement Practices pointed to a significant relationship ( r = .534, p = .022) between the total number of pr actices offered and instituti onal size as determined by the number of the full-time faculty. The tota l number of faculty development practices 400 300 200 100 0 Size of Institution by Number of Full-time Faculty 5 4 3 2 1 0 R 2 = 0.068 Total Practices in Educational Resources

PAGE 104

93 offered in General Teaching Enhancement Pr actices at each of the institutions ranged from a high of 8 to a low of 3. For the rema ining five clusters of faculty development practices, no statistically significant relati onship was observed between institutional size and faculty development offerings. Research Question 4: Perceived Relative Value of Faculty Development Practices Descriptive analyses were conducted to find the mean perceived value for each respondent group on each of the 42 faculty de velopment practices. Respondents selected their answer using a modified Likert type sc ale having five levels ranging from 1 which represents “no value” to 5 wh ich represents “significant va lue”. The data were complied into Table 12. Table 12 Perceived Value of Faculty Develo pment Practices by Respondent Group Mean Perceived Value Faculty Development Practice Full-time Faculty CAO FDP General Teaching Enhancement Practices M SD M SD M SD Teaching improvement events using in-house f acilitators. 3.97 1.04 4. 76 0.44 4. 75 0.46 Teaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers. 3.78 1.13 4.38 0.72 3.50 1.51 Discussions on teaching-relate d issues (e.g. brown bag lunches, topical discussion groups). 3.85 1.04 4.61 0.61 4.13 0.99 Faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning. 2.98 1.33 4.00 1.00 3.63 0.74 Off-campus teaching improvement retreats. 3.58 1.24 4.50 0.63 4.00 1.00 Campus-wide teaching conference (one to three days in length). 3.60 1.21 4.24 0.83 4.29 0.95 Intensive summer institutes (three to ten days in length). 3.61 1.26 4.00 1.17 4.00 0.93 Hosting a regional or national teaching conferen ce. 3.57 1.22 4. 24 0.75 3. 88 0.99

PAGE 105

94 Table 12 (continued). Mean Perceived Value Faculty Development Practice Full-time Faculty CAO FDP Specialized Programs M SD M SD M SD Technology workshops for enhancing instruction or online teaching. 4.36 0.92 4.83 0.51 5.00 0.00 New faculty orientation, teach ing enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school. 4.21 1.07 4.83 0.38 5.00 0.00 Program on preparing a teaching or promot ion portfolio. 3.94 1. 15 4.06 1.12 4.50 0.76 Workshops for personal development, such as, interpersonal skills training, stress management, time management, and retirement planning. 3.93 1.06 4.29 0.77 3.88 1.13 Mentoring program for newly-hired faculty. 4.14 1.09 4.61 0.70 4.88 0.35 Career development program for mid-career faculty. 3.88 1.10 4.06 1.12 3.75 1.04 Professional renewal program for senior faculty. 3.87 1.13 4.00 1.16 3.75 1.17 Faculty development training workshops for department chairpersons. 3.91 1.10 4.60 0.74 4.25 0.89 Requiring either a graduate credit-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equivalent non-credit-bearing course provided by your institution. 3.18 1.44 3.81 1.05 3.88 0.84 Collaborative work groups on campus to facilitate enhanced student learning (e.g. Student Affairs, Departments, and Technical support working together). 3.87 1.09 4.44 0.51 4.00 1.20 Collaborative faculty development activities with other institutions. 3.81 1.11 4.41 0.62 4.00 0.93 Consultations Consultations available to answ er teaching related questions and concerns. 3.98 1.09 4.28 1.07 4.25 0.89 Voluntary in-class teaching obs ervations with follow-up feedback. 3.87 1.03 4.56 0.51 4.38 0.92 Assistance with library research internet research, citation formatting, and statisti cal analysis for publication. 4.05 1.06 4.06 0.94 3.63 0.92 Assistance with external grant writing activities. 3.90 1.07 4.33 0.77 3.75 0.71 Classroom videotaping services with follow-up feedback. 3.47 1.20 3.81 0.98 4.13 0.84 Incentives and Awards Tuition assistance for faculty. 4.68 0.76 4.78 0.43 4.75 0.46 Course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects. 4.46 0.88 4.50 0.86 4.38 0.74 Incentives to encourage faculty to do research that might lead to grants, publicati ons, or conference presentations. 4.05 1.08 4.12 0.99 3.63 0.74 Funds for travel to professional conferences. 4.63 0.72 4.44 0.78 4.75 0.46 Salary or rank advancement for completion of graduate, and under certain conditions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advancing their knowledge in their field 4.58 0.80 3.83 1.34 4.63 0.74

PAGE 106

95 Table 12 (continued). Mean Perceived Value Faculty Development Practice Full-time Faculty CAO FDP Incentives and Awards M SD M SD M SD Salary or rank advancement for completion of on/off campus seminars, workshops, or conferences. 4.20 1.10 3.25 1.34 3.75 1.17 Salary or rank advancement fo r completion of recognized work experience, travel experience, and other professional activities related to their teaching. 4.14 1.11 3.44 1.26 3.75 1.17 Faculty grants program to support the purchase of research materials and equipment or instructional materials. 4.32 0.91 4.06 1.00 4.25 0.71 Outstanding teaching awards prog ram. 3.99 1.12 4.41 0.71 4.63 0.52 Time Away From Campus Teaching fellowship program (semester or y ear in length). 4.05 1.03 3.93 1. 22 4.00 0.82 Release program to work in industry. 3.95 1.18 4.36 0.93 4.00 0.93 Exchange program with faculty at another institution. 3.82 1.14 3.63 1.26 3.88 0.64 Faculty leaves or sabbaticals. 4.43 0.88 4.11 1.02 4.38 0.74 Educational Resources Publish or disseminate newsletters on teaching. 3.74 1.00 3.94 1.12 4.13 0.84 Website containing faculty development materials. 4.01 0.99 4.13 1.09 4.75 0.46 Lending library of faculty de velopment resources (e.g. books, journals, newsletters, videotapes). 4.02 1.04 4.06 1.18 4.63 0.74 Resource guide containing va luable information about teaching and learning unique to the institution. 3.89 1.08 4.00 1.10 4.25 0.46 Online or videotaped self-paced faculty development programs or materials. 3.58 1.21 3.83 1.10 4.75 0.76 Note Perceived value was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = No Value; 5 = Significant Value). CAO = Chief Academic Officer. FDP = Facu lty Development Practitioner. Upon analysis of the data summarized in Table 12, turning atte ntion first to the 408 faculty from Florida’s 22 community colle ges the mean perceived value ratings of the 42 practices ranged from a high of 4.68 gi ven to tuition assistance to a low of 2.98 given to faculty book club focusing on text s related to teaching and learning. The following six items received the highest ratings of mean perceived value from faculty (in descending value): tuition assistance ( M = 4.68, SD = 0.76); funds for travel to professional conferences ( M = 4.63, SD = 0.72); course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects ( M = 4.46, SD = 0.88); faculty leaves or

PAGE 107

96 sabbaticals ( M = 4.43, SD = 0.88); technology workshops fo r enhancing instruction or online teaching ( M = 4.36, SD = 0.92); and a faculty grants program to support the purchase of research materials and eq uipment or instructional materials ( M = 4.32, SD = 0.91). The six items that faculty viewed as ha ving the least perceived value were (in descending value of the mean): off-ca mpus teaching improvement retreats ( M = 3.58, SD = 1.24); online or videotaped self-paced f aculty development programs or materials ( M = 3.58, SD = 1.21); hosting a regional or national teaching conference ( M = 3.57, SD = 1.22); classroom videotaping servic es with follow-up feedback ( M = 3.47, SD = 1.20); requiring either a graduate credit-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equivalent non-credit bearing c ourse provided by your institution ( M = 3.18, SD = 1.44); and faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning ( M = 2.98, SD = 1.33). Certainly the full-time faculty’s highest a nd the lowest perceived value ratings of the 42 separate faculty development practices are noteworthy, however additional practices and their pers pective ratings are worth mentioni ng. There were 10 practices that received a mean perceived va lue rating of 4.0 or higher bu t were not among the highest ratings. These practices that had significant value for faculty were: salary or rank advancement for completion of graduate, a nd under certain cond itions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advanc ing their knowledge in their field ( M = 4.58, SD = 0.80); new faculty orientation, teaching enhanc ement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school ( M = 4.21, SD = 1.07); salary or rank advancement for completion or

PAGE 108

97 on/off campus seminars, workshops, or conferences ( M = 4.20, SD = 1.08); mentoring program for newly-hired faculty ( M = 4.14, SD = 1.09); salary or rank advancement for completion of recognized work experience, travel experience, and other professional activities related to their teaching ( M = 4.14, SD = 1.11); assistance with library research, internet research, c itation formatting, and statisti cal analysis for publication ( M = 4.05, SD = 1.06); incentives to encourage faculty to do research that might lead to grants, publications, or confer ence presentations ( M = 4.05, SD = 1.08); teaching fellowship program ( M = 4.05, SD = 1.03); lending library of faculty development resources ( M = 4.02, SD = 1.04); and website containing f aculty development materials ( M = 4.01, SD = 0.99). Reviewing the chief academic officers’ m ean perceived value ratings for each item listed in Table 12 revealed that the hi ghest mean value was calculated at 4.83 was given to technology workshops for enhancing instruction or online teaching on the five point scale while the lowest reported value was 3.25 given to salary or rank advancement for completion of on/off campus seminars, wo rkshops, or conferences. The six items the CAOs gave the highest value ratings to were (in descending value): technology workshops for enhancing inst ruction or online teaching ( M = 4.83, SD = 0.51); new faculty orientation, teaching enhancement works hop, or retreat prior to the start of school ( M = 4.83, SD = 0.38); tuition assistance ( M = 4.78, SD = 0.43); teaching improvement events using in-house facilitators ( M = 4.76, SD = 0.44); discussions on teaching-related issues (e.g., brown bag lunches, topical discussion groups) ( M = 4.61, SD = 0.61); and mentoring program for newly-hired faculty ( M = 4.61, SD = 0.70). The seven items that

PAGE 109

98 CAOs gave the lowest value ratings to we re (in descending value): salary or rank advancement for completion of graduate, a nd under certain cond itions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advanc ing their knowledge in their field ( M = 3.83, SD = 1.34); online or videotaped self-paced facu lty development programs or materials ( M = 3.83, SD = 1.10); requiring either a graduate cred it-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equi valent non-credit-beari ng course provided by your institution ( M = 3.81, SD = 1.05); classroom videotaping services with follow-up feedback ( M = 3.81, SD = 0.98); exchange program with faculty at another institution ( M = 3.63, SD = 1.26); salary or rank advancement for completion of recognized work experience, travel experience, and other prof essional activities related to their teaching ( M = 3.44, SD = 1.26); and salary or rank advancem ent for completion of on/off campus seminars, workshops, or conferences ( M = 3.25, SD = 1.34). With respect to the perception of the ei ght faculty development practitioners who responded to the survey, inspection of the da ta in Table 12 pertai ning to the perceived values of FDPs on the 42 items indicated that the highest mean value calculated was 5.00 given to two practices and the lowest was 3.50 given to teaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers. Those ite ms with the highest mean perceived value were (in descending value): technology works hops for enhancing instruction or online teaching ( M = 5.00, SD = 0.00); new faculty orientation, teaching enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school ( M = 5.00, SD = 0.00); mentoring program for newly-hired faculty ( M = 4.88, SD = 0.35); teaching improvement events using in-house facilitators ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.46); tuition assistance ( M = 4.75, SD =

PAGE 110

99 0.46); funds for travel to professional conferences ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.46); and website containing faculty development materials ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.46). There were three items that received the second to the lowest m ean perceived value of 3.63. Those items were: faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching ( SD = 0.74); assistance with library research, internet re search, citation formatting, a nd statistical analysis for publication ( SD = 0.92); and incentives to encourage faculty to do research that might lead to grants, publications, or conference presentations ( SD = 0.74). The item that received the lowest mean pe rceived value rating at 3.50 ( SD = 1.51) was teaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers. Although this study surveyed three distinct groups, some noteworthy similarity on the perceived relative value of several faculty developm ent practices was observed among the three groups. All three groups (fulltime faculty, CAOs, and FDPs) rated two faculty development practices among their t op six most valuable activities. These two practices were technology workshops for e nhancing instruction or online teaching, and tuition assistance. Another similarity found between the full-time faculty and FDPs was that both rated funds for travel to prof essional conferences among their top six most highly valued practices. The two groups that were the most parallel in their value ratings were the CAOs and the FDPs. Five of six of their top value ratings were the same. These items were: technology workshops for enhanc ing instruction or online teaching; new faculty orientation, teaching enhancement works hop, or retreat prior to the start of school; tuition assistance; teaching improvement ev ents using in-house facilitators; and mentoring program for newly-hired faculty.

PAGE 111

100 Beyond the highest and lowest perceived va lue ratings for each of the faculty development practices as rate d by each of the respondent groups, there were several noteworthy relationships. Examination of Ta ble 12 highlights two faculty development practices that all three groups had similar mean perceived value ratings. These practices were: course reductions for faculty to enc ourage teaching improveme nt projects (faculty: M = 4.46, SD = 0.88; CAO: M = 4.50, SD = 0.86; FDP: M = 4.38, SD = 0.74); and exchange program with faculty at another institution (faculty: M = 3.82, SD = 1.14; CAO: M = 3.63, SD = 1.26; FDP: M = 3.88, SD = 0.64). Additionally, there were three practices that the three respondent groups provided very dissimilar mean perceived value ratings. These three practices were: faculty book club focusing on te xts related to teaching and learning (faculty: M = 2.98, SD = 1.33; CAO: M = 4.00, SD = 1.00; FDP: M = 3.63, SD = 1.33), salary or rank advancement for completion of on/off campus seminars, workshops, or conferences (faculty: M = 4.20, SD = 1.10; CAO: M = 3.25, SD = 1.34; FDP: M = 3.75, SD = 1.17), and off-campus teaching improvement retreats (faculty: M = 3.58, SD = 1.24; CAO: M = 4.50, SD = 0.63; FDP: M = 4.00, SD = 1.00). Research Question 5: Relationshi p Between Respondent Group and the Perceived Value of Faculty Developm ent Practices Grouped in Six Clusters As noted earlier, due to the complex natu re of the data received, two analysis decisions were made in order to analyze th e data in a meaningful way. One of those decisions was to not look at the faculty de velopment practitioner’s data when comparing participant groups as this w ould restrict the direct co mparisons to only the eight institutions from which responses from th e faculty development practitioners were

PAGE 112

101 received. Additionally, in order to make meaningful between group comparisons, faculty responses from the 18 of 22 institutions wh ere chief academic officers responded to the survey were used. The faculty data at each of the community colleges was aggregated into a single score represen ting the community college. Th is was done in order to compare the single aggregated facu lty score to the CAO score. A paired-samples t-test was conducted on each of the six clusters to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean perceived value ratings of the two respondent groups of chief academic officers and full-time faculty. Comparisons of the two groups presented in Table 13 indicated that the mean value ratings of three of the six clusters were statistically significantly different ( p < .05). Table 13 Paired-Samples T-test Results for CAOs and Full-time Faculty on the Perceived Value of Faculty Development Practices Grouped in Six Clusters CAO Faculty Cluster n M SD M SD t p General Teaching Enhancement Practices 154.31 .621 3.60 .286 4.07* .001 Specialized Programs 164.42 .463 3.97 .252 2.87* .012 Consultations 184.21 .471 3.86 .298 2.20* .042 Incentives and Awards 184.11 .618 4.33 .201 -1.42 .174 Time Away From Campus 163.88 1.07 3.96 .323 -.300 .769 Educational Resources 163.99 1.08 3.88 .292 .395 .699 Note. The n represents the number of full-time fa culty and CAO pairs where faculty data for each cluster were aggregated. *p < .05 A paired t-test for General Teachi ng Enhancement Practices (e.g., teaching improvement events using in-house facilitato rs) indicated a mean difference of 0.71 and was statistically significant, t (14) = 4.07, p = .001. Faculty ( M = 3.60, SD = 0.29) on average rated the perceived value of the item s in this cluster lower than the perceived

PAGE 113

102 value of these practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.62). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from 0.34 to 1.09. A paired-samples t-test for equality of means for Specialized Programs (e.g., technology workshops, new faculty orientation) revealed a mean difference of 0.45 and was statistically significant, t (15) = 2.87, p = 0.01. Faculty ( M = 3.97, SD = 0.25) on average rated the perceived value of the item s in this cluster lower than the perceived value of these practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 4.42, SD = 0.46). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from 0.12 to 0.79. A paired-samples t-test for equality of means for Consultations (e.g., voluntary inclass teaching observations, classroom vide otaping services) was also statistically significant where the mean difference between the two groups value ratings was 0.34 and t (17) = 2.20, p = 0.04. Faculty ( M = 3.86, SD = 0.30) on average rated the perceived value of the items in this cluster lower th an the perceived valu e of these practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 4.21, SD = 0.47). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from 0.01 to 0.67. Analysis of Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources revealed no statistically significan t difference in the means between full-time faculty and CAOs on their perceived value of faculty development practices grouped within these clusters. The paired-samples t-te st for equality of means for Incentives and Awards (e.g., tuition assistance) was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.22 where t (17) = -1.42, p = 0.17. Faculty ( M = 4.33, SD = 0.20) on average rated the perceived value of the items in this cluster slightly higher than the perceived value of

PAGE 114

103 these practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 4.11, SD = 0.62). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged fr om -0.54 to 0.11. Also, the paired-samples ttest for equality of means for Time Away From Campus, indicated a mean difference of -0.08 and was not statis tically significant, t (15) = -0.30, p = 0.77, where faculty ( M = 3.96, SD = 0.32) on average rated the perceived value of the items in this cluster very similar to the perceived value of th ese practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 3.88, SD = 1.07). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from -0.67 to 0.51. Additionally, Educational Resources, was analyz ed using the paired-samples t-test for equality of means and calculated a mean diff erence of 0.11 and also indicated that the relationship was not stat istically significant, t (15) = 0.40, p = 0.70, where faculty ( M = 3.88, SD = 0.30) on average rated the perceived value of the items in this cluster very similar to the perceived value of th ese practices provided by the CAOs ( M = 3.99, SD = 1.08). The 95% confidence interval for the difference in means ranged from -0.503 to 0.732. Research question five was designed to determine if there were significant differences between faculty members and their CAOs in terms of how each group perceived the value of faculty development pr actices grouped in the six clusters: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. A paired-samples t-test was conducted on each of the six clusters to determine if there was a significant relationship between the mean perceived value of the two respondent groups of chief academic officers and full-time faculty. Three of the six

PAGE 115

104 clusters, revealed significant differences between the mean perceived value of the practices as viewed by the fu ll-time faculty and the chief academic officers. The three dimensions included: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, t (14) = 4.07, p = 0.00; Specialized Programs, t (15) = 2.87, p = 0.01; and Consultations, t (17) = 2.20, p = 0.04. Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources were viewed as having similar value by these two gr oups. Thus it appears that faculty members and their CAOs do view the va lue of many faculty developmen t practices differently. In particular, CAOs see many types of faculty development practices as having greater value than do the faculty at their institutions. Research Question 6: Relationship Between the Perceived Value of Practices Grouped in Six Clusters and th e Disciplines of Faculty The sixth question focused on the relations hip between full-time faculty teaching discipline areas (i.e., natural sciences, mathema tics and computer science, social sciences, humanities and arts, professions/occupation a nd applied sciences, and nursing and other allied health related fields) and perceive d value of 42 faculty development practices grouped into six clusters. This research question utilized the entire full-time faculty population of 408 individuals from all 22 of Florida’s public community colleges. The mean perceived value of the discipline groups on each of the clus ters can be found in Table 14. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; 2000) was used to address the research question because faculty were nested w ithin community colleges and were not independent observations. To determine the de gree of nesting within community colleges

PAGE 116

105 an unconditional hierarchical linear model (H LM) was run for each cl uster of practices. In an unconditional HLM there are no predictors in the model and therefore it is possible to partition the variability in the practices (dependent variable) into between community college and within community college variance components. The unconditional HLM provides the information needed to compute the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) which is defined as the proportion of the to tal variance of the outcome that can be explained by the variation between clus ters. An ICC of 0 indicates complete independence and as this calculation reaches 1.0 it means that there is increasing clustering. Table 14 Mean Perceived Value by Discipline for Faculty Development Clusters Mathematics & Computer Sciences ( n = 51) Natural Sciences ( n = 34) Social Sciences ( n = 53) Humanities & Arts ( n = 116) Professions, Occupations & Applied Science ( n = 55) Nursing & Allied Health ( n = 84) M 3.40 3.48 3.49 3.74 3.65 3.85 General Teaching Enhancement Practices SD 0.83 0.85 0.95 0.91 0.73 0.86 M 3.74 3.79 3.88 .398 4.15 4.14 Specialized Programs SD 0.81 0.71 0.85 0.80 0.56 0.65 M 3.47 3.70 3.83 4.04 3.97 3.99 Consultations SD 0.84 0.90 0.80 0.76 0.72 0.79 M 4.03 4.20 4.45 4.42 4.35 4.40 Incentives and Awards SD 0.76 0.74 0.59 0.60 0.56 0.62 M 3.68 4.11 4.22 4.17 4.12 3.95 Time Away From Campus SD 0.94 0.86 0.72 0.83 0.79 1.03 M 3.60 3.69 3.73 3.95 4.01 3.99 Educational Resources SD 0.90 0.83 0.93 0.96 0.73 0.86

PAGE 117

106 Faculty characteristics were looked at as predictors of the de pendent variable and are considered level-1 pred ictors. To conduct the analys is, one of the categorical predictors was coded into a series of dummy variables. Each of the discipline areas was coded into a dummy variable to look at all comparisons across discipline areas. Additionally, other faculty characteristics (i.e., number of years teaching in higher education, length at the institu tion, and gender) were included in the analysis as control variables. For General Teaching Enhancement Practi ces an intraclass correlation (ICC) of .046 was obtained indicating that less than 5% of the variance in General Teaching Enhancement Practices was between commun ity colleges. HLM analyses of General Teaching Enhancement Practices indicated tw o significant differences between faculty discipline areas. HLM compared five discip lines to the reference category which was mathematics and computer science. The results are presented in Table 15 and indicate that there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on General Teaching Enhancement Practices for humanities/arts, t (341) = 2.19, p = .029, and nursing/allied health, t (341) = 2.24, p = .026 compared to mathematics and computer science. The discipline areas of huma nities/arts and nursing/allied hea lth rated items within General Teaching Enhancement Practices significan tly higher than the discipline area of mathematics and computer science. Additionally, the analysis indicated signifi cant findings with the control variables of length of time at current institution and gender on General Teaching Enhancement Practices. Length of time at current ins titution revealed a significant effect on

PAGE 118

107 respondents mean value ratings for Ge neral Teaching Enhancement Practices, t (341) = 2.65, p = .009. This indicates that the longer i ndividuals have been at their current institution, the lower their value rating was on the items within General Teaching Enhancement Practices. Table 15 Mean Perceived Value Differences for General Teaching Enhancement Practices General Teaching Enhancement Practices Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 3.40 0.83 t Natural Sciences 3.48 0.85 0.00 0.01 Social Sciences 3.49 0.95 0.14 0.85 Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 3.65 0.73 0.33 2.00 Humanities & Arts 3.74 0.91 0.32 2.19* Nursing & Allied Health 3.85 0.86 0.35 2.24* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly higher mean value ratings from mathematics & computer science for General Teaching Enhancement Practices where p = .05. The analysis of gender also revealed si gnificant effects on mean value ratings for General Teaching Enhancement Practices, t (341) = 2.57, p = .011. Specifically, females as compared to males indicated statistica lly significant higher mean value ratings of faculty development practices grouped within General T eaching Enhancement Practices. The obtained ICC for Specialized Programs was .059 indicating that less than 6% of the variance in Specialized Programs was between community colleges. HLM analyses of Specialized Programs indicated tw o significant differences between mathematics/computer science and other f aculty discipline areas (see Table 16). The results indicate that there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on

PAGE 119

108 Specialized Programs for nursing/allied health t (317) = 2.09, p = .037, and professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (317) = 2.65, p = .009, compared to mathematics and computer science. The disc ipline areas of profe ssions/occupational and applied sciences and nursing/allied health rated items within Specialized Programs significantly higher than the di scipline area of to mathematics and computer science. Table 16 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Specialized Programs Specialized Programs Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 3.74 0.81 t Natural Sciences 3.79 0.71 -0.01 -0.04 Social Sciences 3.88 0.85 0.18 1.17 Humanities & Arts 3.98 0.80 0.21 1.57 Nursing & Allied Health 4.14 0.65 0.30 2.09* Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 4.15 0.56 0.40 2.65* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly higher mean value ratings from mathematics & computer science for Specialized Programs where p = .05. In reviewing all of the HLM analys es that were conducted an additional difference between discipline areas for Sp ecialized Programs wa s found when natural sciences was used as the reference variable, = 0.40. The results indica te that there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on the items in Specialized Programs for professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (317) = 2.32, p = .021compared to natural sciences. The discipline area of professions/occupational and a pplied sciences rated items within Specialized Programs significantly higher than the discipline area of natural sciences. Additionally, the analysis indicated signifi cant findings with the control variables

PAGE 120

109 of length of time at current institution a nd gender on Specialized Programs. Length of time at current institution revealed a signifi cant effect on respondents mean value ratings for Specialized Programs, t (317) = -0.07, p = .039. This indicates that the longer an individual has been at their current institution, the lower their value rating was on the items within Specialized Programs. The analysis of gender also revealed si gnificant effects on mean value ratings for Specialized Programs, t (317) = -2.08, p = .039. Specifically, females as compared to males indicated statistically significant highe r mean value ratings of faculty development practices grouped within Specialized Programs. For Consultations, an ICC of .037 was obtaine d indicating that le ss than 4% of the variance in Consultations was between community colleges. HLM analyses of Consultations indicated four si gnificant differences between fa culty discipline areas (see Table 17). The results indicate that there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on Consultations between mathematics/ computer sciences a nd the discipline areas of: social sciences, t (341) = 2.37, p = .018; professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (341) = 2.96, p = .004; nursing/allied health t (341) = 3.18, p = .002; and humanities/arts, t (341) = 3.89, p = .000. These four discipline areas rated items within Consultations significantly higher than the di scipline area of mathematics and computer science. Of the additional HLM analyses that were conducted, a difference between discipline areas for Consulta tions was found when natural sciences was used as the reference variable, = 0.39. The results indicate that th ere was a significant difference in

PAGE 121

110 mean value ratings on the items in Consultations for humanities/arts, t (341) = 2.38, p = .018compared to natural sciences. The discip line area of humanities/arts rated items within Consultations signifi cantly higher than the disciplin e area of natural sciences. Table 17 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Consultations Consultations Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 3.47 0.84 t Natural Sciences 3.70 0.90 0.15 0.84 Social Sciences 3.83 0.80 0.38 2.37* Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 3.97 0.72 0.48 2.96* Nursing & Allied Health 3.99 0.79 0.48 3.18* Humanities & Arts 4.03 0.76 0.54 3.89* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly different mean value rati ngs from mathematics & computer science for Consultations where p = .05. The ICC for Incentives and Awards was .008 indicating that less than 1% of the variance in Incentives and Awards was between community colleges. HLM analyses of Incentives and Awards compared five discip lines to the reference category which was mathematics/computer science (see Table 18). The results indicated that there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on Incentives and Awards between mathematics/computer sciences and the four discipline areas of: social sciences, t (347) = 3.49, p = .001; professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (347) = 2.65, p = .009; nursing/allied health t (347) = 2.70, p = .008; and humanities/arts, t (347) = 3.78, p = .000. These four discipline areas rated items within Incentives and Awards significantly higher than the discipline area of mathematics and computer science.

PAGE 122

111 Table 18 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Incentives and Awards Incentives and Awards Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 4.03 0.76 t Natural Sciences 4.20 0.74 0.19 1.36 Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 4.35 0.56 0.33 2.65* Nursing & Allied Health 4.40 0.62 0.32 2.70* Humanities & Arts 4.42 0.60 0.41 3.78* Social Sciences 4.45 0.59 0.44 3.49* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly different mean value rati ngs from mathematics & computer science for Incentives and Awards where p = .05. For Time Away From Campus, an ICC of .021 was obtained i ndicating that less than 3% of the variance in Time Away Fr om Campus was between community colleges. HLM analyses of Time Away From Campus indicated four significant differences between faculty discipline areas (see Table 19). The results indicate that there was a significant difference in mean value rati ngs on Time Away From Campus between mathematics/computer sciences and the di scipline areas of: natural sciences, t (329) = 2.67, p = .008; social sciences, t (329) = 3.14, p = .002; humanities/arts, t (329) = 3.44, p = .001; and professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (329) = 2.64, p = .009. Mathematics/computer sciences rated the items in this cluster lower than these disciplines. Analysis of the control vari ables indicated significant fi ndings with the effect of gender on mean value ratings for Time Away From Campus, t (329) = 2.07, p = .039. Specifically, females as compared to males i ndicated statistically si gnificant higher mean value ratings of faculty development practic es grouped within Time Away From Campus.

PAGE 123

112 Table 19 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Time Away From Campus Time Away From Campus Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 3.68 0.94 t Nursing & Allied Health 3.95 1.03 0.27 1.58 Natural Sciences 4.11 0.86 0.54 2.67* Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 4.12 0.79 0.47 2.64* Humanities & Arts 4.17 0.83 0.54 3.44* Social Sciences 4.22 0.72 0.57 3.14* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly different mean value rati ngs from mathematics & computer science for Time Away From Campus where p = .05. The ICC for Educational Resources was .023 indicating that less than 3% of the variance in Educational Resources was betw een community colleges. HLM analyses of Educational Resources indicated only two significant differences between mathematics/computer science and other facult y discipline areas. The results as seen in Table 20 indicate that there was a signifi cant difference in mean value ratings on Educational Resources between mathematics/co mputer sciences and the discipline areas of humanities/arts, t (360) = 2.27, p = .024 and professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (360) = 2.45, p = .015. The discipline areas of humanities/arts and professions/occupational and appl ied sciences rated items within Educational Resources significantly higher than the di scipline area of to mathematics and computer science. Of the additional HLM analyses that were conducted, a difference between discipline areas for Educationa l Resources was found when natural sciences was used as the reference variable, = 0.40. The results indicate th at there was a significant difference in mean value ratings on th e items in Educational Resources for

PAGE 124

113 professions/occupational and applied sciences, t (360) = 2.06, p = .039 compared to natural sciences. The discipli ne area of professions/occupa tional and applied sciences rated items within Educational Resources significantly higher th an the discipline area of natural sciences. Table 20 Mean Perceived Value Differences for Educational Resources Educational Resources Discipline M SD Mathematics & Computer Sciences 3.60 0.90 t Natural Sciences 3.69 0.83 0.22 0.11 Social Sciences 3.73 0.93 0.13 0.75 Humanities & Arts 3.95 0.96 0.34 2.27* Nursing & Allied Health 3.99 0.86 0.32 1.95 Professions, Occupations & Applied Science 4.01 0.73 0.43 2.45* Note Disciplines are rank ordere d by mean from lowest to highest. Hierarchical Linear Modeling analysis is indicated in the tw o right hand columns with mathematics & computer science as the reference variable. Those disciplines noted with are disciplines with significantly different mean value rati ngs from mathematics & computer science for Educational Resources p = .05. Analysis of the control vari ables indicated significant fi ndings with the effect of gender on mean value ratings for Educational Resources, t (360) = 2.287, p = .023. Specifically, females as compared to males i ndicated statistically si gnificant higher mean value ratings of faculty development practic es grouped within Educational Resources. The sixth research question attempted to determine if a difference existed between the perceived value of faculty development practices grouped in six clusters among the six discipline areas of full-time faculty me mbers. ICC calculations were conducted on each of the six clusters to determine the propor tion of the total variance of the outcome that can be explained by the variation be tween clusters. An unconditional HLM model was run to evaluate the relationship between the relative perceived value of faculty

PAGE 125

114 development practices grouped in a cluster a nd the specific discipline area in which the faculty teach. The results from the analysis indicated th at there were significant differences in the mean perceived values between faculty gr ouped in the six discip line areas for all six clusters. The discipline area that differed th e least overall from the main reference variable, mathematics and computer sciences, was the natural science discipline which only varied on Time Away From Campus. The na tural sciences rated the items in Time Away From Campus significantly higher than the discipline area of mathematics and computer sciences. Each of the remaining disciplines differed in their value ratings of the clusters more often. The social sciences rated items significantly higher than mathematics and computer sciences within three clusters: C onsultations, Incentives and Awards, and Time Away From Campus. Nursing and allied hea lth had mean value ratings that were significantly higher than mathematics and com puter sciences in four clusters: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, Consultations, and Incentives and Awards. The discipline of humanities and arts provided mean value ratings significantly higher than mathematics and comput er sciences on items in five clusters: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Cons ultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. The combined discipline area of professions, occupations and applied scie nce also provided mean value ratings significantly higher than mathematics and comput er sciences on items in five clusters: Specialized Programs, Consultations, Incenti ves and Awards, Time Away From Campus,

PAGE 126

115 and Educational Resources. Inspection of the clusters indicates that the least vari ation of mean value ratings between mathematics and computer sciences an d the five other discipline areas occurred in General Teaching Enhancement Practices Specialized Programs, and Educational Resources with only two having higher mean va lues. The greatest number of variation of mean value ratings within clusters occurred in Consultations, Incentives and Awards, and Time Away From Campus where four disc ipline areas differed from the reference discipline of mathematics and computer sciences. Also, when the discipline area of natural sc iences was the reference variable, there were three occurrences in which other disc ipline areas had significantly higher mean value ratings. The discipline area of humanitie s and arts rated items in Consultations higher than natural sciences and the discipline area of professions, occupations and applied science rated items in both Specia lized Programs and Educational Resources higher than natural sciences. The control variables of length at ins titution and gender both indicated effects on the perceived value of practices. Length at the institution was significant in General Teaching Enhancement Practices and Specializ ed Programs where the longer the time at an institution, the lower the value rating in these two areas. Gender was significantly related to four practices: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, Time Away From Campus, and Educ ational Resources. Females rated items in these clusters higher than their male counterparts.

PAGE 127

116 Additional Findings At the end of the faculty developm ent practices survey the CAO and FPD population survey respondents were presented with the identical de mographic questions presented to the full-time faculty and four additional demographic questions to collect background information on the FPD position. The purpose of these questions was to determine: (a) if there were individuals w ho assist the person in charge of faculty development; (b) if the person in charge of faculty development also taught classes; (c) if there was a recurring line item budget and if so if that budget had changed in the last three years; and (d) how did they foresee futu re allocations of funds for staff and program development after the deletion of the mandatory two percent allocation requirement as designated in FAC 6A-14.029. To obtain a wide r perspective of th e structure of the faculty development practiti oner position, the 18 CAO respons es to these demographic questions were analyzed. The analysis of the first demographic question provided a very interesting finding. Early in this study each of the CAOs was c ontacted via email and asked to provide the name of the individual at their institution w ho was most directly responsible for faculty development at his or her institution (see A ppendix A). The person identified by the CAO was then referred to as the faculty developm ent practitioner (FDP), regardless of his or her actual position title at thei r institution. This distinction was made as institutions often divide faculty development practices acro ss several different functional units (e.g., human resources, academic affairs, institutional advancement). The individuals identified by the CAOs were designated as the FDPs unless the CAO named him or herself as the

PAGE 128

117 person most directly responsible for faculty development, in which case that particular institution did not have a uniquely identif ied FDP. Of the 18 CAOs that responded, 16 provided names of individuals who they identified to be the FDP at their institution. So it was surprising to look at the CAOs answers to this first demographic question in which only one CAO responded that a Faculty Developm ent Practitioner assists them with their faculty development efforts at their instituti on. Nine of the CAOs responded that a team or committee assisted them, and 8 responded th at a staff member was designated to work with them on faculty development. The second demographic question asked if the CAO was currently teaching any classes. Of the 18 CAOs, only four indicated that they were teaching classes. Two of those individuals were teaching 3 credit hours one was teaching six credit hours, and one CAO responded that he or she was teaching nine credit hours. The third demographic question asked if there was a recu rring line item budget and if so if that amount has increased, remain ed the same, or decrea sed in the last three years. According to the 18 CAOs who responde d, 13 reported that th ere was a line item budget for faculty professional development at their institution. Of the 18 CAOs who responded, eight indicated that th eir budget had remained the sa me in the last three years and nine indicated that their budget had decreased over the same period of time. The final demographic question posed to the CAOs was an attempt to see if the recent change in the Florida Administ rative Code 6A-14.029 on Staff and Program Development would change their allocation of funds for staff and program development in the near future. This change was the requirement to allocate two percent of the

PAGE 129

118 operating budget for staff and program deve lopment. Seventeen of the 18 CAOs who responded indicated that their budgets woul d remain the same and one indicated a significant decrease in funding. At this time, it does not seem that the change in the Florida Administrative Code will have a dr amatic impact upon the projected faculty professional development budgets in Florida’s community colleges. Summary of Key Findings Much of the data presented in this chapter are descriptive in nature. The first research question identified the specific f aculty development practices that had been offered in the last three years to full-tim e faculty employed at 18 of Florida’s 22 public community colleges. Responses provided by th e CAOs were utilized to determine if an institution had offered a particular practice. Fi ve practices were found to be offered at all 18 institutions, an additional five at 17 of the institutions and an additional five at 16 of the institutions. Or, in other words, there we re 15 faculty development practices that 16 of 18 institutions, or 89%, had offered. On the other hand, there were five practices that were only offered by five of 18 institutions (i.e., 28%). The second research question sought to determine if there was a relationship between the size of the full-tim e faculty population at each of the institutions and the total number of different faculty development prac tices offered by their institutions. The total number of faculty development practices offe red at each institution ranged from a high of 41 to a low of 19 different practices. The correlational analysis revealed that a nonsignificant relationship betw een these two factors ( r = .365; p = .14) and explained only 11% of the variability.

PAGE 130

119 This study’s third research question, para lleling the second question, sought to determine if there was a relationship between the size of the fulltime faculty population at each of the institutions and the total numbe r of faculty development practices grouped into six clusters. Analysis of one of th e six clusters, General Teaching Enhancement Practices, pointed to a significant relations hip between the total number of practices offered and the size of the institution as determined by the size of the full-time faculty population (see Table 21). The five other cluste rs failed to show a si gnificant relationship between the size of the full-tim e faculty population at each of the institutions and the total number of faculty development pr actices grouped into six clusters. Descriptive data were used to address th e fourth research inquiry exploring the mean perceived value each of the three s ub group populations (fu ll-time faculty, chief academic officers, and faculty development prac titioners) rated for each of the 42 faculty development practices. Although this study surveyed three distinct groups some similarity on the perceived relative value of several faculty development practices was observed among the three groups. All three gr oups (full-time faculty, CAOs, and FDPs) rated two faculty development practices among their top six most valuable activities. These two practices were technology work shops for enhancing in struction or online teaching, and tuition assistance. Another sim ilarity found between the full-time faculty and FDPs was that both rated funds for travel to professional conferences among their top six most highly valued practices. The two groups that were the most parallel in their value ratings were the CAOs and the FDPs. Five of six of their top value ratings were the same. These items were: technology workshops for enhancing inst ruction or online

PAGE 131

120 teaching; new faculty orientation, teaching e nhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school; tuition assistance; teac hing improvement events using in-house facilitators; and mentoring pr ogram for newly-hired faculty. Research question five was designed to determine if there were significant differences between faculty members and their CAOs in terms of how each group perceived the value of faculty development practices consisting of General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Program s, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Education Resources among chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-ti me faculty. A paired-samples t-test was conducted on each of the six clusters to dete rmine if there was a significant difference between the mean perceived value of the two respondent groups of chief academic officers and full-time faculty. Three of the si x clusters, revealed significant differences between the mean perceived value of the prac tices as viewed by the full-time faculty and the chief academic officers as can be seen in Table 21. The three dimensions included: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, t (14) = 4.07, p = .00 where the CAOs reported a higher mean perceived value; Specialized Programs, t (15) = 2.87, p = .01 where the CAOs reported a higher mean per ceived value; and Consultations, t (17) = 2.20, p = .04 where the CAOs reported a higher mean percei ved value. Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resource s were viewed as having similar value by these two groups. The last research question examined the perceived value of faculty development practices grouped in six clusters provided by full-time faculty teaching in six different

PAGE 132

121 discipline areas. This analysis was conducted on all full-tim e faculty responses (n= 408) from the 22 community colleges that were in the population. The results from the analysis indicated that there were significan t differences in the mean perceived values between faculty grouped in the six discipline areas for all six clusters. Specifically, when mathematics and computer sciences was used as the reference variable, the discipline area that differed the least overall from ma thematics and computer sciences was the natural science discipline which only varied on Time Away From Campus having reported higher value ratings than ma thematics and computer sciences. Each of the remaining disciplines differed in their value ratings of the clusters more often. The social sciences reported higher value ratings than mathematics and computer sciences in Consultations, Incen tives and Awards, and Time Away From Campus. Nursing/allied health had mean value ratings that were significantly higher than mathematics and computer sciences in General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, Consultations, and Incentives and Awards. Both the humanities and arts and professions and occupational and applied scienc es differed in mean value ratings on five clusters. The discipline area of humanities and arts rated items higher than the discipline area of mathematics and computer sciences in General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. The professions and occupational and applied science discipline rated items higher in Specialized Programs, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Camp us, and Educational Resources. The least variation of mean value ratings between math ematics/computer sciences

PAGE 133

122 and the five other discipline areas occurre d in General Teaching Enhancement Practices and Educational Resources with only tw o groups differing. The greatest number of variation of mean value ratings within clus ters occurred in Consu ltations, Incentives and Awards, and Time Away From Campus wher e four discipline areas differed from mathematics and computer sciences. Additionally, when natural sciences was used as the reference variable, the discipline area of professions and occupations and app lied sciences rated items significantly higher in Specia lized Programs and Educational Resources. Length of time at the institution was used as a control variable and indica ted significant differences in General Teaching Enhancement Practices and Specialized Programs where the longer an individual was at an institu tion the lower the value rating in these two clusters. Also, females rated items significantly higher than males in the areas of: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Progr ams, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. According to the summary of findings in Table 21, overall, the size of the institution did not seem to play a part in th e number of faculty deve lopment practices that were offered. There were differences in perc eived value between the CAOs and full-time faculty, where CAOs rated items higher than the faculty. Discipline differences also occurred where mathematics and computer sc iences reported the lowest mean value ratings in all clusters. Additionally, length at the institution and gender affected the participants responses to th e value of 42 faculty developm ent practices grouped within six clusters.

PAGE 134

123 Table 21 Summary of Differences Between Faculty Development Practices Clusters Faculty Development Practices Clusters Correlation with Number of Full-time Faculty Perceived Value Discipline Length at Institution Gender General Teaching Enhancement Practices .534* CAO > FTF Math < Hum/Arts Math < Nursing -2.65* 2.57* Specialized Programs .255 CAO > FTF Math < Professions Math < Nursing Natural Science < Professions -2.08* 2.21* Consultations -.194 CAO > FTF Math < Social Science Math < Hum/arts Math < Professions Math < Nursing -0.76 0.82 Incentives and Awards .106 CAO = FTF Math < Social Science Math < Hum/arts Math < Professions Math < Nursing -1.43 1.69 Time Away From Campus .355 CAO = FTF Math < Social Science Math < Hum/Arts Math < Professions Math < Natural Science 0.18 2.07* Educational Resources .261 CAO = FTF Math < Hum/arts Math < Professions Natural Science < Professions -1.89 2.28* Note. CAO = Chief Academic Officer; FTF = Fulltime Faculty; Hum/arts = Humanities and Arts p > .05

PAGE 135

124 CHAPTER 5 Discussion Faculty development is a means by which institutions can assist faculty in addressing the challenges they face each day in the classroom. Stagnation and burnout can occur without continual renewal a nd improvement fostered through faculty development promoting “lifelong, holistic, pe rsonal, and professi onal learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003). Certainly the impor tance of faculty development is never more evident than within community college s where access is provi ded to all students through an open-door admission policy which often produces a more diverse student body creating numerous instituti onal challenges that have hi storically been addressed through faculty development practices Overtime, on many campuses, faculty development practices have come to play a prominent role in helping faculty fulfill their institution’s mission. The discussion of faculty development as addressed by this study is presented in this chapter by first summarizing the enti re study, followed by the conclusions drawn from the findings of each of the six res earch questions. A discussion follows with implications and recommendations for Flor ida’s community colleges as well as for community colleges nationwide. Recommendations for future research are provided next and the chapter concludes with an overall summary.

PAGE 136

125 Summary One purpose of this study was to examin e faculty development practices offered in the last three years by Flor ida’s 22 public community colleges and to determine if the total number of different practices offered as well as the different types of practices were related to institutional size as measured by the number of full-time faculty. A second purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of these practices as viewed by full-time faculty, faculty deve lopment practitione rs, and academic administrators in these institutions. A third purpose was to assess and compare the relative perceived value of f aculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty within six different discipline areas. Although faculty development practices have been implemented widely in community colleges nationally, the faculty de velopment efforts of Florida’s community colleges have not been studied either comp rehensively or recently. The present study attempted to address this gap in the publishe d research literature, as well as, to assess directly an important ques tion not previously explore d, namely, do faculty, faculty development practitioners, and ac ademic administrators differ in their perceptions of the relative value of different types of faculty development practices. This study can assist those responsible for faculty development of ferings to make prudent decisions in the practices offered so as not to have unnecessary expenditure of funds. It would be sensible to utilize faculties’ percep tion of the value of practices and programs offered to implement those practices of greatest appeal. Previous research and the related literatu re on faculty development did not reveal

PAGE 137

126 either a commonly agreed upon definition of th e term or typical program structure across different campuses. Definitions of faculty development have vari ed by the number of component dimensions and topical areas included. For this re ason a comprehensive definition of faculty development deve loped by one of the prominent national professional organizations in the field was us ed for this study. The definition of faculty development used was: any activity or practice in higher education that is dedicated to the on-going value of improved learning and teaching through faculty, instructional, curricular, and organizational development. Faculty development supports and fosters improvement in higher education through huma n development that is “lifelong, holistic, personal, and profession al learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003). The literature indicates that the first repor ted faculty development efforts began in the 1950’s and were rather limited in scope. In the 1970’s, growth in faculty development practices was initiated by e ducational foundations, such as Mellon, Danforth, Carnegie, Lilly, Kellogg, Bush, and Ford (Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). Three sign ificant pieces of research documenting faculty developmen t efforts were done during this period (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Centra, 1976; and Gaff, 1975). Also discussed in the literature was the fact that community co lleges committed to both high quality teaching as well as serving their communities’ needs, recognized that many instructional challenges for faculty could be addressed through a variety of faculty development practices. A few of the challenges tackle d by faculty development programs in the community colleges included: a changi ng and diverse student body, the rapidly expanding use of instructional technology, d eclining higher educati on budgets, increasing

PAGE 138

127 demand for state-mandated accountability, the la ck of preparation for and/or experience in teaching among many new faculty member s, and a common sense of professional isolation. In Florida’s community colleges faculty development was formalized by the implementation of a 1968 state statute (230.767 F. S. 1968) on staff and program development. This statute remained in eff ect in the Florida Ad ministrative Code (6A14.029) until July 20, 2004 and called for ever y Florida community college to adopt policies on staff and program development and allocate “not less than two percent” from its resources available for current operations (1995, p. 260). On July 20, 2004 the Florida Administrative Code (6A-14.029) was amende d by removing the two percent allocation requirement yet the code still contains the directive that “each community college shall identify within its annual operating budge t funding to support staff and program development activities” (1995, p. 260). A web-based questionnaire wa s developed for this study to gather data from three populations within Florida’s 22 public comm unity colleges: chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-ti me faculty. The instrument was created by reviewing the best avai lable research literature and the su rvey’s content validity was later supported by a panel of experts. A small pilot study of one institution with a response rate of 84% led to slight modifications in the in strument. The data collection process via the Web did not indicate any problems with this form of data collection method. The pilot study results also indicated that the grouping of individual survey items into six clusters provided internally consistent scores.

PAGE 139

128 Results and Conclusions It is important to first discuss several limitations noted in the beginning of this study that may have impacted not only the re sponse rate which was 11% for faculty, 80% for CAOs, and 50% for FDPs, but also the responses given. These limitations were beyond the scope of this study but could be cont rolled for in future studies. For example, the potential limitation that respondents from institutions where faculty development is a central focus would be more interested in carefully completing the survey. On the other hand, respondents from institutions with litt le or no faculty development might not be interested in responding thoughtfu lly. Future research could be more closely controlled by correlating response rate for instituti ons and the number of practices and by comparing institutions with similar levels of faculty development offerings. In the same manner, the respondent limitation that dealt with multiple campuses of an institution creating different faculty development needs among the faculty populations could also be controlled through the analysis and comparis on of the different campuses within multicampus institutions. There were several timing related limitations mentioned in Chapter 1 that did, in fact, have relevance to these findings. The fi rst was the time at which the survey was distributed, namely, early in the Fall 2004. In itially, it was antici pated that the only limitation that timing posed was that the ti ming may not be appropriate for respondents who are new to their institution or their position and consequently were not familiar with the faculty development offerings at their in stitution. Unfortunately, a larger problem in Fall 2004 was the impact of hurricane season in Florida. In 2004, f our major hurricanes

PAGE 140

129 and one tropical storm hit Fl orida leaving countless reside nts without electricity and many without homes. The damage was so severe at one community college that the Chief Academic Officer made a special request to not include his institution in the study. It is believed that these storms could have directly and adversely affected the rate of surveys returned which was 11% for full-time faculty. Additionally, the last timing limitation noted, namely the possibility that respondents may not regularly read their email and may not open the survey during the one-month data collection period or were unable to could also have been increased due to these hurricanes. As indicated earlier, to present the data clearly, a series of decisions were made. For example, initially data provided by all respondent groups were analyzed. To determine if a particular faculty developmen t practice was offered at an institution the data reported by the full-time faculty, CAOs, and FDPs were examin ed; a clear lack of convergence of responses was observed across groups. In the most extreme cases, the CAO reported that a faculty development prac tice was offered, the FDP reported that the same practice was not offered, and the full-time faculty indicated in their responses that the practice either was, was not, or unsure/don’t know if th e practice was offered. Thus, it was decided that to determine if a campus of fered a specific faculty development practice the response of the CAO was used. An a dditional reason for using this respondent group’s data to address the first research que stion was the response rates with each of the three groups. Of the 22 CAOs contacted, 18 responded for an 82% return rate. Even though the response rate for CAOs was qu ite good, only 50% of the FDPs responded. Although only 11% of the full-time faculty resp onded, this return ra te was not uncommon

PAGE 141

130 as two other recent web-based research su rveys had been done utilizing Florida’s community college faculty and also received return rates of 11%. Research Question One According to the CAOs of 18 of Florid a’s 22 public community colleges, all 42 faculty development practices on the survey fo rm were offered by at least one institution in the last three years. Although no one inst itution offered all 42 pr actices, one institution did report offering 41 one of the practices surveyed. The fewest number of practices offered at any one institution was 19 and the m ean number of practices offered at the 18 individual institutions was 28.67. Overall, 36% of the 42 possible faculty development practices were offered to full-time faculty wi thin the past three y ears at 16 of the 18 institutions (89%). This study found that the CAOs reported 16 faculty development practices were quite common among 18 of Florida’s comm unity colleges. One of these common practices, new faculty orientation was also reported to be common among community colleges nationwide by Grant and Keim (2002). Grant and Keim (2002) also found that faculty handbooks were a common practice, but the present st udy indicated that only 10 (55%) of Florida’s 18 community colleges em ployed this approach. Research by Grant and Keim (2002) pointed to the increase of personal development practices and indeed this study found this to be true at 94% of the institutions. Interest ingly, while Grant and Keim found that sabbatical leav es and funds for travel to conferences were not common practices among two year colleges, all 18 of the reporting community colleges in Florida did offer these practices. Numerous studi es (Blackburn, Pelino, Boberg, & O’Connell,

PAGE 142

131 1980; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Fletcher & Patrick, 1998) found sabbatical leaves and funds for travel to conferences to be th e most common practices offered during the 1950’s and 1960’s and it is certai nly possible that the reason th at these practices remain common in Florida may be due to the long hi story of faculty development in the state which was instituted originally in Florida statute (230.767 F. S. 1968) in 1968 and requires that all community colleges support staff and progr am development practices by identifying funding within their annual budget for such activities. Research Question Two & Three The results of the second research ques tion revealed that ove rall there was not a statistically significant rela tionship between the total num ber of practices offered by Florida’s community colleges and the size of that institution as determined by the number of full-time faculty positions. While no previous research investigated the relationship between size of institution and number of faculty development practices offered, it appears from the present findings that inst itutional size is unrelated to the size and strength of its faculty development offerings However, one would think that with the statutory mandate until July of 2004 that not less than two percent of each community college’s operating budget be allocated to staff and program development, that larger institutions would indeed ha ve larger faculty development programs and offer greater number of different practices. Alternatively, si nce the statute did not stipulate specifically how the funding should be spent, it is possible that some institutions put most of their money into a relatively small number of differe nt practices. It must also be noted that institutions could be providing practices th at were not on this survey instrument and

PAGE 143

132 therefore are not accounted for. However, with respect to research question number three that was also designed to reveal possible relationships between the size of the inst itution and the to tal number of faculty development practices offered, only one of six clusters re vealed a significant relationship. This cluster, General Teachi ng Enhancement practices, was statistically significant at the alpha level .05 where r = .534. Many of the practices found in General Teaching Enhancement Practices, (e.g., teach ing improvement events using in-house facilitators, teaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers, discussions on teaching-related issues, facu lty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning, off-campus teaching improvement retreats, campus-wide teaching conference, intensive summer institutes, and hosting a regional or national teaching conference) such as using nationally rec ognized speakers, retreats, and campus-wide conferences, are more conducive to larger inst itutions as the format allows for larger numbers of individuals to attend. An institut ion could provide several of these larger capacity events in order to better serve their la rger full-time faculty populations. Because of the nature and cost of some of the practices contained within General Teaching Enhancement Practices, it would seem appropriate that the larger institutions would be able to offer more of these type s of practices. For example, it might not be fiscally responsible for a small institution to bring in a costly nationally recognized speaker to speak to a small group; in some in stances, one speaker could deplete an entire faculty development budget. At the same time using a nationally recognized speaker for a teaching improvement event for all faculty at a large institution would be more practical

PAGE 144

133 in terms of a cost/benefit analysis. Faculty book clubs, on the other hand, might be extremely cost effective among small institutions. Research Question Four With respect to research question nu mber four, which looked at the mean perceived value rating each respondent group as signed to each of 42 faculty development practices, only a few similarities were detect ed on this mostly descriptive question. It should be noted that a possi ble limitation of this study wa s that respondents may respond in a manner they feel will be favored by thei r institution’s administration. Since the study was anonymous it is believed that this probl em posed only a minimal threat to the accuracy and generalizability of the reported findings. There were two practices, technology work shops and tuition a ssistance, that all three groups (full-time faculty, CAOs, and FDPs ) rated among their top six most valuable practices. Additionally, full-time faculty a nd FDPs both rated funds for travel to professional conferences among their top si x most highly valued practices. The two groups that were most similar in their perceptions were the CAOs and the FDPs for which five of six of their top value ratings were the same. These items were: technology workshops for enhancing instruction or onlin e teaching; new faculty orientation, teaching enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to th e start of school; tuiti on assistance; teaching improvement events using in-house facilitato rs; and mentoring progr am for newly-hired faculty. It seems that when it comes to the relati ve perceived value of faculty development practices as viewed by full-time faculty there has been little change over the last several

PAGE 145

134 decades. The faculty in this study ( n = 408) gave tuition assistance the highest mean value rating of 4.68 ( SD = 0.76); this is consistent with the findings of just over 25 years ago when Cohen and Brawer (1977) and Caffey (1979) reporte d that faculty preferred faculty development practices that focuse d on furthering their knowledge within their field. Additional evidence of this wa s reported by Blackburn, Pellino, Boberg, and O’Connell (1980) who found that faculty percei ved keeping abreast of their discipline was the most important element of effective teaching and that this was most effectively achieved through taking courses, accumulating credits, and earning de grees within their discipline. The faculty in this study additionally placed high value on funds for travel to professional conferences ( M = 4.63, SD = 0.72); course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects ( M = 4.46, SD = 0.88); faculty leaves or sabbaticals ( M = 4.43, SD = 0.88); technology workshops fo r enhancing instruction or online teaching ( M = 4.36, SD = 0.92); and a faculty gran ts program to support the purchase of research materials and eq uipment or instructional materials ( M = 4.32, SD = 0.91). This finding is consistent with past re search by Blackburn et al. (1980) as they reported that faculty leaves and grants were pe rceived by faculty to be most beneficial to stay current in their field by taking cour se work and by attending conferences. Although the research by Caffey (1979) found that the most highly valued goal for faculty was the improvement of teaching skills and Fugate and Amey’s (2000) study found that faculty development programs were perceived as an important component in the ability to be an effectiv e teacher, it doesn’t ap pear that faculty in this study would

PAGE 146

135 necessarily agree. The practices that they reported as ha ving the lowest value included practices that dealt directly with becoming a more effective teacher such as: off-campus teaching improvement retreats ( M = 3.58, SD = 1.24); online or videotaped self-paced faculty development programs or materials ( M = 3.58, SD = 1.21); hosting a regional or national teaching conference ( M = 3.57, SD = 1.22); classroom videotaping services with follow-up feedback ( M = 3.47, SD = 1.20); requiring either a graduate credit-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equivalent noncredit bearing course prov ided by your institution ( M = 3.18, SD = 1.44); and faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning ( M = 2.98, SD = 1.33). Apparently, for the full-time faculty in this study, knowing your subject matter and keeping current in that area were viewed as more essential to becoming an effective teacher than directly learni ng the skills of teaching eff ectiveness which is usually a central theme to many of the faculty development practices presented in this study. This in no way means that faculty are not concerne d with pedagogy but rather the data from this study suggest that faculty value tuition assistance and funding for conferences more. There were a few similarities to faculty ’s most highly valued practices and the most highly valued practices of the CAOs. Practices that both gr oups preferred were: technology workshops for enhancing instructio n or online teaching and tuition assistance. In contrast, Cohen and Brawer (1977) indicated that admi nistrators did not generally place great emphasis on getting advanced degrees but instead favored on-campus workshops. Although technology workshops ge nerally occur on-campus, this was the only on-campus type faculty development practice that faculty preferred; interestingly the

PAGE 147

136 remainder of CAOs preferred practices that were on-campus type act ivities (new faculty orientation, teaching improvement events us ing in-house facilitators; discussions on teaching-related issues; and mentoring program for newly-hired faculty). It is also interesting to note that Snyder (1988) found th at administrators and faculty similarly perceived on-campus practices to be va luable and found the only difference in perceptions between faculty and administ rators were with respect to personal development activities (e.g., career planning, time management, stress management, and wellness) where faculty perceived them to be more effective than administrators. The eight FDPs were fairly similar in their value ratings compared to the 18 CAOs. Five of six of their most highly ra ted faculty development practices were the same. These items were: technology workshops for enhancing inst ruction or online teaching; new faculty orientation, teaching e nhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school; tuition assistance; teac hing improvement events using in-house facilitators; and mentoring program for newly-hired faculty. The limited research (Blackburn et al., 1980) in the area of FDPs perceptions suggests that FDPs are more likely to be part of the administrative cohor t than they are to be faculty. Blackburn et al.(1980) assert that faculty de velopment practitioners appear to perceive that faculty development is synonymous with enhancing in structional skills and excludes content specialization. The f aculty development practitioners that Blackburn et al. (1980) surveyed reported that the most beneficial ar ea of faculty development was in the area of instructional development and reported that other areas, such as personal development and content specializat ion through coursework and conferen ces, that might be found in a

PAGE 148

137 typical faculty development pr ogram are least beneficial. Research Question Five Research question number five was de signed to determine if there were significant differences between full-time facu lty members and their CAOs in terms of how each group perceived the va lue of faculty development practices grouped into six clusters. Three of the six clusters revealed significant differenc es between the mean perceived value of the practices as viewed by the full-time faculty and the chief academic officers. The three dimensions included: General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, and Consultations. For each of these cluste rs the CAOs reported higher value ratings for the faculty development practices within each cluster. There were three clusters where full-time faculty and CAOs did not significantly differ in their value ratings. These were : Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. This is su rprising as four out of six practices that full-time faculty gave the highest value ra tings involved Incentives and Awards and most of the items within Incentives and Awards typi cally have higher costs associated with them and with CAOs more likely to be budge t conscious, these items might be expected to receive lower ratings from those responsible for keeping costs down. Research Question Six The final research question was designed to determine if a relationship existed between the perceived value of faculty development practi ces grouped in six clusters among full-time faculty from six different discipline areas. Using mathematics and computer sciences as the reference variable the discipline area that differed the least

PAGE 149

138 overall from mathematics and computer sciences was the natural science discipline, which varied only on Time Away From Cam pus. Each of the remaining disciplines differed in their value ratings of the clusters more often. The social sciences rated items higher in Consultations, Incentives and Award s, and Time Away From Campus. Nursing and allied health had mean value ratings that were significantly higher in General Teaching Enhancement Practices, Specialized Programs, Consultations, and Incentives and Awards. Both the humanities and arts and professions and occupational and applied sciences differed in mean value ratings on five clusters. Humanities and arts had higher value ratings in General Teaching Enhancem ent Practices, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educat ional Resources. The discipline area of professions and occupations, and applied scie nce had higher value ratings in Specialized Programs, Consultations, Incentives and Awards, Time Away From Campus, and Educational Resources. Inspection of the practices i ndicates that the least varia tion of mean value ratings between mathematics and computer sciences an d the five other discipline areas occurred in General Teaching Enhancement Practices Specialized Programs, and Educational Resources with only two groups differing. Th e greatest number of variation of mean value ratings within clusters occurred in Consultations, Incentives and Awards, and Time Away From Campus where four discipline ar eas differed from mathematics/computer sciences. Prior published research on differences in the perceived value of faculty

PAGE 150

139 development practices by faculty from diffe rent disciplines was not discovered. It is possible that this finding is congruent with the earliest research from both Cohen and Brawer (1977) and Caffey (1979) which report ed that the preferred faculty development practice of full-time faculty wa s to further their knowledge w ithin their field. This finding might suggest that workshops on technology, teaching practices, or other practices focused on assisting faculty become more eff ective teachers is not as important to the mathematics and computer science faculty as it is to the other discipline areas of natural science, humanities/arts, nursing/alli ed health, social sciences, and professions/occupational. Implications and Recommendations fo r Florida’s Community Colleges Chief Academic Officers reported that a wide range of faculty development practices were being offered across Florid a’s community colleges from 2002 to 2005. However, it is important to ask if these f aculty development practi ces are widely known by full-time faculty as full-time faculty data indicate far fewer pract ices taking place at their institutions. Without specif ically isolating an individual institution it is difficult to determine full-time faculty’s level of awarene ss of faculty development practices offered. The greatest disparity in the number of faculty development practices reported by one community college CAO and his or her fu ll-time faculty occurred at one institution where the CAO reported 34 practices had been offered over the past three years and fulltime faculty reported that 41 practices were offered. This means that the full-time faculty were aware of more faculty development pr actices offered at their institution than reported by their CAO. It is possible that some Florida’s community college CAOs may

PAGE 151

140 not be fully award of all of the practices being offered as many may be run locally through departments and not college wide. In some cases, designated FDPs may offer more activities than the CAOs are knowledgeable about. Conversely, there were instances were the CAOs reported far more faculty development practices than the full-tim e faculty. One plausible reason for this discrepancy is that there ma y be a policy in place that provides a particular faculty development practice, for example sabbatical, but the practices is so rarely used or granted that full-time faculty ar e not aware of its existence. One recommendation to help communicate an d promote the availability of faculty development practices offered within institut ions is through the use of another faculty development practice noted in th is research. Ironically, there are actually several faculty development practices that by their very natu re would assist in publicizing all faculty development opportunities to the full-time facu lty population and in fact these practices are some of the least expensive. For ex ample, only 12 of the 22 (55%) institutions reported having a website containing faculty development materials. This website could contain all faculty development practices provided by the institution including links to additional information, a calendar of activ ities, workshop information, and other resources. What could be mo re cost effective than delivering faculty professional development information to th e desktops of all faculty? Another relatively inexpensive method of providing community college full-time faculty members with pertinent faculty development information is through a printed resource guide. This guide could be s upplied annually and include both faculty

PAGE 152

141 development information, as well as instituti on specific instructional information starting with the academic calendar. Improving communication between full-time faculty and those who sponsor or provide faculty development practices in Florida’s community colleges is just the first step in creating meaningful and cost eff ective faculty development programs. Another major change in faculty development at in stitutions could be through the implementation of individualized development plans or IDPs. This faculty development practice was not included in this study’s instrument as the su rvey was not an exhaus tive list of practices and it was believed that the majority of the respondents may not know what this practice was. IDPs can provide the st epping stone necessary for e ffective faculty development programs as suggested by earlier studies by Nelson and Siegel (1980) and Murray (1995, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001). According to Eleser and Chauvin (1998), IDPs provide administrators with the ability to under stand faculty’s individual professional development goals and to identify the faculty development practices that might best meet their goals. Given the discipline differences observed in this study, IDPs would seem to help point to faculty development practices th at would assist faculty in achieving their specific discipline related teaching goals. Findings from this study reveal clearl y that faculty do indeed have preferred faculty development practices as well as thos e that are not preferred. The practices that full-time faculty reported as being highly va luable, however, were among those that are more costly, such as tuition assistance, f unds for conferences, grants, course reductions, and sabbatical leaves. This supports Caffey’s (1979) research that also reported the high

PAGE 153

142 cost of faculty’s preferred pr actices. The present findings al so reveal that two of the practices that faculty gave lower value rati ngs to, retreats and hosti ng regional or national teaching conferences, were also quite costly and could very well be eliminated without upsetting most faculty. Also noteworthy among the present findings is the fact that five of the six most valued practices of full-time faculty are offered at 16 of the 18 (89%) institutions surveyed. Findings from this study of Florida’ s community colleges faculty development programs has important value to those res ponsible for the delivery of these programs because each institution is responsible for re sponding to the directive contained in Florida Administrative Code (6A-14.029) that states “each community college shall identify within its annual operating budget funding to support staff and program development activities” (1995, p. 260). At th e time of this study 17 of the 18 CAOs that responded indicated that their faculty development budge ts would remain the same for the upcoming academic year. One CAO indicated a significant decrease in funding. It is hoped that this one institution with plans to decrease the faculty developmen t budget will be eliminating only those practices that their full-ti me faculty view as least valuable. Ideally, the 17 institutions that plan to keep their faculty development budgets the same will look at the challenges faced by their faculty and thei r institution as a whole and use that money to address those challenges. The demands placed on the educational system by society are always changing. Recently this has centered around the legislative and public demand for greater accountability in terms of assessing the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. The current push is for classrooms to become more

PAGE 154

143 student-centered and less inst ructor-centered to better educ ate the workforce of the 21st century. While Barr and Tagg (1995) have t houghtfully addressed th is shift but since most faculty have not read their work, it ma kes great sense for institutions to provide faculty development practices that help faculty achieve this objective. The practices most valued by faculty probably won’t directly tack le this challenge but several of the CAOs most valued practices could. For exampl e, the CAOs valued highly new faculty orientations and the mentoring of new facu lty, along with in-house teaching improvement events and discussions on teaching-related issues. Such low cost practices could focus on this particular aspe ct of accountability. Further, this pressure for increased account ability is occurring at the same time as community colleges are being asked to better adapt to the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. A vari ety of faculty development practices can help faculty develop the tools needed to work with the students that open door admission policies generate. Here again, the faculty developmen t practices that are most likely to help address this issue are ones that CAOs valu ed most highly. Teaching improvement events using in-house facilitators and discussions on teaching-re lated issues are just two practices that can assist faculty members in learning appropriate communication skills for diverse student population (Bakutes, 1998). Thus, some challenges may be addressed through faculty development practices that either the full-time faculty or the C AOs indicated as thei r most highly valued. However, one challenge, the lack of prepar ation and training community college faculty receive, can be dealt with directly with a faculty deve lopment practice that neither

PAGE 155

144 respondent group gave high valu e ratings to and only five community colleges in this study currently provide in their faculty de velopment programs. The recommended faculty development practice is requiring a course on “C ollege Teaching” thr ough either a creditbearing course or a course provided by the community college. Most faculty come to the community college with minimal experience in teaching students who operate at both ends of the skill level continuum and with unique learning styles. Incoming faculty may be knowledgeable in their content area but ve ry few graduate schools adequately prepare them for teaching at the two-year colleg e level (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; GibsonHarman, Rodriguez, & Hawort h, 2002). Knowing the content and being able to teach the content are not synonymous. A course on “College Teaching” would be helpful to overcome the lack of teacher preparation, as would new facu lty orientations and mentor ing programs for newly-hired faculty. Both of these practices were highly valued by the CAOs and are being offered in at least 17 institutions. Previous research by Fugate and Amey (2000) found that new faculty members felt that they benefited from or could have benefited from, a faculty development program that provided informa tion on the nature of their student population, institutional philosophy and prio rities, practical classroom te aching advice, and assistance with the day-to day issues that might arise in the classroom. New faculty orientations and a mentoring program for newly-hired faculty are two faculty development practices that are not expensive and could not only assist new faculty overc ome their lack of teaching preparation, but also assist mid-career and senior faculty avoid yet another challenge faced by community colleges, faculty burnout.

PAGE 156

145 It has been observed that some facu lty suffer from mid-life crises caused by physical, social, emotional, and pedagogical exhaustion while senior faculty can have additional difficulties with despair, loss of identity, fear, and disillusionment as retirement approaches (DiLorenzo & Heppne r, 1994). The possibility of faculty burnout creates another challenge that effective f aculty development practices can address. Utilizing mid-career and senior career faculty as mentors to the newly hired faculty could support all three parties in their efforts to maintain vitality and vigor. Murray (2002a) stated that faculty development programs can provide the antidote to this problem. Findings from the present survey reveal that faculty development practices aimed at midcareer and senior faculty were not rated as having high value by either the full-time faculty or the CAOs. Further, these practices were also only taking place in nine and eight institutions respectively among the 18 cam puses surveyed. Thus, implementing just two relatively inexpensive facu lty development practices, new faculty orientations and a mentoring program of newly-hi red faculty, could help to al leviate three of the current challenges facing community colleges; lack of training and preparation of new teachers, mid-career and senior career burnout. The final faculty development challenge to be discussed is the technological explosion occurring in our society and the re sulting push for both f aculty and institutions to make greater use of computers and other technology-related instructional tools. Faculty need to develop the same proficiency and co mfort with technology as their increasingly sophisticated students not only for classroom utilization but for communication with their students via email and the World Wide Web (Fletcher & Patrick, 1998). It is apparent

PAGE 157

146 that both faculty and CAOs recognize this ch allenge and the need to address it. Not only did full-time faculty and CAOs list the f aculty development practice of offering technology workshops among their most highl y valued practices, but indeed all 18 institutions are curre ntly offering this particular faculty development practice. In short, one way for Florida’s community colleges to address the multitude of instructional challenges currently facing thei r institution and their faculty is by offering broad-based faculty development programs (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). To be most successful, this approach shoul d utilize a developmental persp ective that offers “a process of renewal, growth, change, and con tinuous improvement” (Burnstad, Hoss, & McHargue, 1993, p. 22). Such approaches look at a variety of domains, including the intellectual, the institutiona l, the personal, the social, and the pedagogical (Menges, 1985). The values of each institution, and how it sees quality teaching fitting into their institutional mission, are central to this a pproach (Mintz, 1999). DiLorenzo and Heppner (1994) assert that faculty development must be an institutional priority, and that recognition of this must start at the top with visible support from the college president as well as a consistent funding source (Weimer, 1990). Implications and Recommendations for National Community Colleges The challenges just addressed are not limited to Florida’s community colleges; they are similarly faced by co mmunity colleges nationwide a nd might be responded to in a like fashion. But a question still remains. Are the challenges facing the nation’s higher education system being currently addresse d through faculty development programs? If they are, to what degree are full-tim e faculty aware of these practices?

PAGE 158

147 If the results of the presen t study are generalizable else where, it is very possible that faculty nationwide are not very well informed about the faculty development practices available to them. Th is issue should be explored em pirically in future research. CAOs and FDPs nationwide may wish to use th is study’s instrument to gather local data to determine what practices are most valued by full-time faculty and to determine the level of awareness of the current practices offered. In addition, many faculty may not even be aware that they are in need of developmental assistance as they may not be provided with any type of feedback on their teaching abilities. Those who are in great est need of faculty development may be languishing away on the side line s from lack of awareness or individual concern. In some cases, the opposite may be true. Faculty deve lopment practices could be utilized by a small group of faculty who always make use of the opportunities provided them regardless of their need. Higher education needs to evaluate the current situation when it comes to the need, value, and effectiveness of faculty de velopment programs. We can not afford to have differences in value perception when it comes to faculty development. There are rapid changes occurring in today’s education sy stem as the diversity of students requires that faculty alter their peda gogical tool box to address that diverse student body. Faculty are on the front lines with these students and their perceptions of va luable practices need to be taken into account when creating or expanding faculty development offerings. Recommendations for Future Research Future studies could explore a host of add itional possibilities in the area of faculty

PAGE 159

148 development. One omission in both previous rese arch and the present research is the lack of qualitative information that could be gath ered through either through interviews with respondents or by institutional case studies. The benefits of case st udy interviews are in the ability to explore in si gnificantly greater depth faculty development practices. For example, how many individuals applied for and received sabbatical leaves; and what benefits to the individual a nd his/her institution were de rived? Open ended comments received in this study revealed that at some institutions while sabbaticals are offered, for the most part they are not uti lized as it would require faculty to receive only half of their current pay which is not economically feasib le for all. Are some faculty development practices perceived as valuable to faculty but not practical in te rms of the monetary incentive or reassigned time? Additional information could also be ga thered with case study methods. For example, survey answers from respondents are typically framed within each individuals’ institutional experience. A respondent may have indicated that workshops are not valuable but he or she may have just sat in on a bad workshop recently. Determining why respondents answered the way that he or she did goes beyond the nature and scope of this study but more in-depth interviews could tease out why respondents answered the way they did. Interviews could also help to determin e if there are any possible barriers to implementing faculty development at some in stitutions. Potential barriers could be budgetary limitations and administrative priorities. An additional obstacle for implementing faculty development practices c ould be apathy in that institutions have

PAGE 160

149 attempted to offer a variety of practices but faculty do not partake in them. To overcome this type of barrier, participation in pr ofessional development programs could be a requirement for employment, continued empl oyment, promotion, or tenure. Monetary incentives and professional recognition to mo tivate faculty involvement could also be utilized. This type of policy could not be im plemented without first analyzing the culture of an institution thr ough in-depth case study. Since accountability is one of the key chal lenges that faculty and their institutions are confronted with, research in the connection between f aculty development and student success could be a very important area in future research. If many of the faculty development practices offered are intended to assist faculty in he lping students achieve success, determining if students are succeed ing could be a driving force in the implementation of future faculty developmen t practices being offe red. The correlation between the level of success that the stude nts are achieving and the types of faculty development practices being offered at an institution can illuminate the success, or failure, of faculty development and guide the direction of future programming. In summary, faculty development in Fl orida’s community colleges is a central part of the current community college cultu re. Although differences exist between faculty and administrators about what is the most valued practice there is a commitment from within the administration and the faculty to ma intain a strong faculty development effort. The commitment is evident when thr oughout the 22 Florida community colleges surveyed, 41 of the 42 practices were offere d. The fewest number of activities offered at any one institution was 19.

PAGE 161

150 Faculty development practices provid e unique opportunities for Florida’s community colleges, and higher ed ucation institutions in genera l, to directly confront the challenges that face them today. Faculty are the institution’s front line of attack in combating the challenges of: a changing diverse student body, technology explosion, declining higher education budgets, and th e demand for greater state-mandated accountability measures. Yet many new facu lty members do not come equipped to address these challenges as they may lack pr eparation and/or experience in teaching and established faculty may suffer from prof essional autonomy and isolation. Faculty development practices can not only be the means by which institutions assist faculty in addressing the challenges they face each day in the classroom but they can also breathe new life into those who have found themselves on the verge of stagna tion. This battle can be won through continual renewal and improvement fostered through faculty development promoting “lifelong, holistic, pe rsonal, and professi onal learning, growth, and change” (POD, 2003).

PAGE 162

151 REFERENCES Abedor, A. J., & Sachs, S. G. (1984). Faculty development, organizational development, and instructional developmen t: Choosing an orientation. In R. K. Bass & C. R. Dills (Eds). Instructional Development: The State of the Art, Vol. II (pp. 394-413). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Alexander, L. & Newsom, R. (1998). Inte rnet listservs: A follow-up to faculty development at two-year colleges. Community College Review 25 (4) 61-74. Alfano, K. A. (1993a). Case studies of Ca lifornia community college AB 1725 faculty and staff development programs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(07) 2476. (UMI No. 9332637). Alfano, K. (1993b). Recent strategies for faculty development. Community College Review, 21 (1), 68-78. Almeida, D. A. (1991). Do underprepared studen ts and those with lower academic skills belong in the community college? A questi on of policy in light of the “mission.” Community College Review, 18(4) 28-32. Alstete, J. W. (2000). Post tenure faculty development: Building a system for faculty improvement and appreciation. ERIC digest Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440603) American Association of Community College s. (2004). Community co llege fact sheet. Retrieved January 4, 2004 from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Content/Navi gationMenu/AboutCommunityColleges/F ast_Facts1/Fast_Facts.htm Anderson, J. (1997). Faculty development and th e inclusion of diversity in the college classroom: Pedagogical and curricular transformation. In D. DeZure (Ed), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Fa culty, Instructional, & Organizational Development, 16 (pp. 41-52). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Anderson, L. W. (1988). Likert s cales. In J. P. Keeves (Ed), Educational Research, Methodology, and Measuremen t: International Handbook, pp. 427-428. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.

PAGE 163

152 Anderson, S. E. (1989). The status of facu lty development programs in community colleges in the state of Wa shington (Washington State). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(03) 720. (UMI No. 9020896). Angelo, T. A. (1994). From faculty development to academic development. AAHE Bulletin, 46(10) 3-7. Angelo, T. A. & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teacher San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ashur, N. E. (1991). Faculty development, the flexible calendar program, and job satisfaction in selected California community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(02) 382. (UMI No. 9212105). Atkins, S., Brinko, K., Butts, J., Claxton, C., and Hubbard, G. (2001). Faculty quality of life. In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlburg (Eds), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, & Organizational Development, 19 (pp. 323-345). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Baker, G. A., Roueche, J., & Gillett-Karam, R. (1990). Teaching as leading. Profiles of excellence in the open-door college Washington, DC: The Community College Press. Bakutes, A. P. (1998). An examination of faculty development centers. Contemporary Education, 69(3) 168-171. Barr, R. B., & Tagg, T. (1995). From teach ing to learning – a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13-25. Bauske, D. R. (1983). A critical analysis a nd evaluation of faculty development program outcomes in community colleges in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(04) 966. (UMI No. 8319560) Bergquist, W. H., & Phillips, S. R. (1975, 1977, 1981). A handbook for faculty development. Vols. 1, 2 and 3 Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges. Blackburn, R. T., Pellino, G. R., Boberg, A., & O’Connell, C. (1980). Are instructional improvement programs off-target? Current Issues in Higher Education, 2(1), 3248. Bland, C. J., & Schmitz, C. C. (1990). A guide to the literature on fa culty development. In J. H. Schuster, D. W. Wheeler, & Associates (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers (pp. 298-328). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

PAGE 164

153 Boice, R. (1984). Reexamination of traditio nal emphases in faculty development. Research in Higher Education, 21(2), 195-209. Boothe, T. M. (1981). Needs assessment for pr ofessional staff development in Alabama’s public junior/community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42(09) 3819. (UMI No. 8127322) Bowen, H. R., & Schuster, J. H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled New York: Oxford University Press. Brancato, V. C. (2003, Summer). Professi onal development in higher education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 59-65. Brawer, F. B. (1990). Faculty development: The literature. An ERIC review. Community College Review, 18(1) 50-56. Breeden, C. K. (1989). A descriptive analys is of evaluation of faculty development practices at selected California comm unity colleges (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (11) 3423. Burnstad, H. M., Hoss, C. & McHargue, M. (1993). Growing your own staff development program Retrieved October 6, 2003 from http://www.ncspod.org/publications.php Byrd, A. M. (1985). Four dimensions of sta ff development activities as related to parttime community college instructors’ needs, awareness, and levels of participation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(09), 2535. (UMI No. 8523808) Caffey, D. L. (1978). Perceptions of full-time faculty members at selected Texas public community-junior colleges regarding f aculty development goals and practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(02), 692. (UMI No. 7917312) Caffey, D. L. (1979). Full-time faculty in facu lty development: Their perceptions of what is and what should be. Community/Junior College Research Quarterly, 3(4), 311323. California Postsecondary E ducation Commission. (1988). State policy for faculty development in higher education. Commission Report No. 88-17 Sacramento, California: The Commission. Centra, J. A. (1976). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.

PAGE 165

154 Centra, J. A. (1985). Maintaining faculty vi tality through faculty development. In S. M. Clark and D. R. Lewis (Eds) Faculty vitality and in stitutional productivity New York, New York: Teachers College Press. Claxton, C. S. (1976). Community college staff development. Basic issues in planning Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cooper, J. C. (1982). A survey of needs assessment process for faculty development programs in community-junior colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43(06) 1805. (UMI No. 8225431) Cooper, J. D. (1981). A paradigm for staff development in the community college National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development, Muscatine Community College, Muscatine, Iowa. Council on Instructiona l Affairs. (1999). About us Operating procedures Retrieved January 15, 2004 from http://www.pbcc.edu/cia/index.html Cross, K. P. (2001). Leading-edge efforts to improve teaching and learning The Hesburgh awards. Change, 33(4) 31-37. Crow, M. L., Milton, O., Moomaw, W. E. & O’Connell, W. R. (1976). Faculty development in Southern universities Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Dellamura, M. H. (1986). An analysis of the us e of faculty development principles in two year colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(08), 2868. (UMI No. 8626266) Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The total design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. DiLorenzo, T. M. & Heppner, P. P. (1994). Th e role of an academic department in promoting faculty development: Recognizing diversity. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72 485-492. Eble, K. E. (1971). Career development of the effect ive college teacher. Project to improve college teaching Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors and Association of American Colleges.

PAGE 166

155 Eble, K. E. & McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through faculty development: An analysis of effective prog rams and practices San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Eison, J. & Sorcinelli, M. D. (1999). Improving teaching and learning: Academic leaders, faculty, and faculty developers as partners Workshop handout distributed as part of pre-conference workshop presented at the Seventh AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, San Diego, CA. Eleser, C. B., & Chauvin, S. W. (1998). Professional deve lopment how to’s: Strategies for surveying faculty. Innovative Higher Education, 22 (3), 181-201. Ellerbe, J. H. (1980). Faculty development prac tices in North Carolina technical institutes and community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(05), 1910. (UMI No. 8020526) Ellis, L. K. (1997). Coordinated studies progra ms as a vehicle for faculty development: A case study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(01) 66. (UMI No. 9822751) Ellis, R. D. (1990). An examination of st aff development for part-time or adjunct faculties in Florida public community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(04) 1092. (UMI No. 9025556) Fletcher, J. J. & Patrick, S. K. (1998). Not ju st workshops any more: The role of faculty development in reframing academic priorities. International Journal for Academic Development, 3(1) 39-47. Florida Administrative C ode (FAC). (1995). 6A-14.029 Staff and program development Retrieved October 6, 2003 from http://fac.dos.state.fl.us Florida Community College System. (1999). The Florida community college system: A strategic plan for the millennium 1998-2003 Retrieved October 6, 2003 from http://www.dcc.firn.edu/ Vision/strategic_plan.pdf Florida Community College System. (2004, March). Putting minds to work: The fact book report for the Florida community college system Retrieved May 6, 2004 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/arm/cct cmis/pubs/factbook/fb2004/factbk04.pdf Freedman, M. (1973). Facilita ting faculty development. New Directions for Higher Education. 1(1) 105.112. Fugate, A. L. & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1) 1-22.

PAGE 167

156 Fulton, C., and Licklider, B. (1998). Supporting f aculty development in an era of change. In M. Kaplan (Ed), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, & Organizational Development, 19 (pp.51-66). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty, instructional, and organizational development San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaff, J. G. (1977). Current issues in faculty development. Liberal Education, 63 511519. Gaff, S. S., Festa, C ., & Gaff, J. G. (1978). Professional development. A guide to resources New Rochelle, NY: Change Magazine Press. Gibson-Harman, K., Rodrigu ez, S., & Haworth, J. (2002, Spring). Community college faculty and professional staff: The human resource challenge. New Directions for Community Colleges 77-90. Gill, A. D. (1993). Faculty perceptions of faculty development programs at public community colleges in Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(04), 1324. (UMI No. 9326100) Giordano, M. M. (1989). Full-time faculty de velopment programs in Illinois community colleges: 1988. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(12), 3806. (UMI No. 9012568) Graf, D. L., Albright, M. J., & Wheeler, (1992, Fall). Faculty development’s role in improving undergraduate education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 101-109 Grant, M. R. & Keim, M. C. (2002). Faculty development in publicly supported two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 793-807. The Group for Human Development in Higher Education. (1974). Faculty development in a time of retrenchment New Rochelle, NY: Change magazine. Hammons, J., Smith, T. H., & Watts, G. (1978). Staff development in the community college: A handbook. Topical Paper Number 66 Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges. Hansen, D. W. (1983). Faculty development ac tivities in the Illinoi s community college system. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 7(3) 207-230.

PAGE 168

157 Hoerner, J., Clowes, D., & Impara, J. ( 1991). Professional development programs in community and technical colleges: Are o ccupational-technical faculty needs well served? Journal of Studies in Technical Careers, 13(4), 351-360. Hopple, T. G. (1991). Professional faculty development practices used in two-year postsecondary educational institutions (two year colleges). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(03) 759. (UMI No. 9121262) Katz, J., & Henry, M., (1988). Turning professors into teachers: A new approach to faculty development and student learning New York: American Council on Education Macmillan Publishing Company. Kyger, B. L. (1985). An investigation of th e evaluation of faculty development practices in Illinois community colleges (Staff, instructional improvement). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(05), 1173. (UMI No. 8514776) Langley, G. S. (1988). A needs assessment of staff development activities within the North Carolina community college system. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(07) 1677. (UMI No. 8815513) Lefler, J. C. (1998). A study of faculty devel opment at fourteen community colleges in the Tennessee Board of Regents System. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(01) 53. (UMI No. 9917933) Maneth, P. E. (1987). Faculty development pr actices at Kansas community colleges: An analysis of their perceived effectiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(03) 413. (UMI No. 8806250) Manzo, K. K. (1996). Faculty development moving in right direction. Community College Week, 9(2) 10-12. McQueen, R. M. R. (1980). The impact of staff development programs on public community college teachers in Texas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(07), 2903. (UMI No. 8029011) Meacham, J. & Ludwig, J. (2001). Faculty and students at the center: Faculty development for general education courses. Journal of General Education, 50(3) 254-269. Menges, R. J. (1985). Career-span faculty development. College Teaching, 33(4), 181184. Miller, W. S. & Wilson, K. M. (1963). Faculty development pr ocedures in small colleges, Research Monograph No. 5. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

PAGE 169

158 Millis, B. J. (1994). Faculty development in the 1990s: What it is and why we can’t wait. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72 454-465. Mintz, J. A. (1999). Faculty developm ent and teaching: A holistic approach. Liberal Education, 85 32-37. Murray, J. P. (1995). Faculty (mis)development in Ohio two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19 549-593. Murray, J. P. (1998). Faculty development in New York two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22 53-66. Murray, J. P. (1999). Faculty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review, 27(3) 47-64. Murray, J. P. (2000). Faculty development in Texas two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24 251-267. Murray, J. P. (2001). Faculty development in publicly supported 2-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25 487-502. Murray, J. P. (2002a, Summer). The current state of faculty development in two-year colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 89-97. Murray, J. P. (2002b). Faculty development in SACS-Accredited community colleges. Community College Review, 29(4) 50-67. National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education Final report of the Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. Nelsen, W. C., & Siegel, M. E. (Eds). (1980). Effective approaches to faculty development. Washington, DC: Associati on of American Colleges. Nielsen, N. (1991). Responding to the new student diversity. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal, 61(5) 45-48. O’Banion, T. (1973). Teachers for tomorrow Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. Oromaner, M. (1998). Faculty and staff development. ERIC digest Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Outcalt, C. L. (2002, Summer). Toward a professionalized community college professorate. New Directions for Community Colleges 109-115.

PAGE 170

159 Parnell, D. (1990). Dateline 2000: The new higher education agenda Washington, DC: Community College Press. Paterno, D. L. (1994). Elements of faculty de velopment programs and their evaluations at Texas community colleges (Training). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(05) 1202. (UMI No. 9426752) Pendleton, E. P. (2002). Re-asse ssing faculty development. Black Issues in Higher Education, 19(19), 106. Phillips, K. D. (2002). Faculty development goals and activities as perceived by full-time and adjunct mathematics and communicati ons instructors in Florida community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03) 827. (UMI No. 3084033) Plater, W. M. (1995). Future work: Faculty time in the 21st century. Change, 27(3), 2233. Professional and Organizational Developm ent Network in Higher Education (POD). (2003). What is faculty development. Faculty development definitions Retrieved October 15, 2003 from http://www.podnetwork.org/development/definitions.htm Quinlan, K. M. (1991). About teaching & learning centers. AAHE Bulletin 44(2), 11-16. Raudenbush, S, Bryk, T., & Congdon, R. (2000) HLM 6 Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientif ic Software International, Inc. Raufman, C. L. (1991). Dimensions of f aculty development: Organizational factors related to creating effective faculty development programs in selected California community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(06), 1997. (UMI No. 9135183) Rosenberger, S. L. (1991). Institutionalization of staff development in Florida community colleges: Case studies of a changing clim ate. (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1991). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(07), 2218. Saret, L. E. (1993). Full-time faculty per ceptions of faculty development programs in northern Illinois suburban community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(08), 2848. (UMI No. 9400663) Schmidt, W. C. (1997). World-Wide Web surv ey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Inst ruments, and Computers, 29, 274279.

PAGE 171

160 Schuster, J. H. (1990). The need for fresh a pproaches to faculty renewal. In J. H. Schuster, D. W. Wheeler & Associates (Eds), Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal (pp. 3-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schuster, J. H, Wheeler, D. W., & Associates. (1990). Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shackelford, R. (1993). Teaching the technology of teaching: A faculty development program for new faculty. In D. Wright & J. Lunde (Eds), To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instru ctional, & Organizational Development, 12 (pp. 189-206). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press. Simerly, R. (1977). Ways to view faculty development. Educational Technology, 17(2), 47-49. Smith, A. (1981). Staff development goals and practices in U. S. community colleges. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 5(3), 209-225. Snyder, J. I. (1988). The importance and effec tiveness of faculty development activities at selected League for In novation community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49 (11), 3283. (UMI No. 8903160) Solomon, David J. (2001). Conducting web-ba sed surveys. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(19). Re trieved January 4, 2005 from http://PAREonline.ne t/getvn.asp?v=7&n=19. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. (2004). Criteria for accreditation. Retrieved February 6, 2004 from http://www.sacscoc.org/principles.asp Sprague, J. L. (1980). A comparison of full and part-time community college faculty judgments of the importance of selected pre-employment factors, instructional methods, and staff development efforts. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (08) 3393. (UMI No. 8101458) SPSS. (2004). Statistical Package for the Soc ial Sciences Graduate Pack 13.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. State of Florida. (2003). The 2003 Florida statutes. Section 1007.33 Site-determined baccalaureate degree access Retrieved February 6, 2004 from http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/inde x.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL= Ch1007/ch1007.htm Sykes, C. J. (1988). Profscam: Professors and the de mise of higher education. New York: Kampmann & Company.

PAGE 172

161 Taylor, S. R. (1988). A proposed framework for individualizing staff development programs in the North Carolina community college system. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49(08), 2183. (UMI No. 8822413) Titlow, F. G. (1980). An analysis of staff development need perceptions in Florida’s public community colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(09), 3912. (UMI No. 8106274) Toombs, W. (1983). Faculty development: The institutional side. New Directions for Institutional Research, 10(4), 85-94. Weimer, M. (1990). Improving college teaching: Strategies for developing instructional effectiveness San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. White, M. R. (1977). A study of the relationshi p of selected faculty characteristics and faculty development needs as perceived by faculty members in Mississippi public junior colleges. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38(10), 5874. (UMI No. 7802943) Wilshire, B. (1990). The moral collapse of the univer sity: Professiona lism, purity, and alienation. Albany: State University of New York Press. Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality and value: A means-end Model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (3), 2-22.

PAGE 173

162 APPENDICES

PAGE 174

163 Appendix A: Email Request to Voting Member of the Council on In structional Affairs for Name of Individual Directly Responsible for Faculty Development at their Institution Dear Colleague: My name is Susan S. Finlay and I am a fu ll-time faculty member at Manatee Community College, as well as, a doctoral candidate in Hi gher Education at the University of South Florida. I am writing to you because you ar e designated as your institutions voting member on the Council of Instructional Affairs. In the next few months I will contact you again regarding my brief survey of faculty development practices at your institution. At this point in time, it would assist my efforts greatly to learn the na me of the person most directly involved with and responsible for faculty deve lopment activities offered at your institution. Would you be so kind as to take a moment to reply to this email by noting the individual’s name, title, and their email address. In advance, I thank you sincerel y for your time and assistance. Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College 8000 South Tamiami Trail Venice, FL 34293 finlays@mccfl.edu

PAGE 175

164 Appendix B: Faculty Development Practices Survey Instrument Welcome and thank you for agreeing to complete this short survey. Please begin by first reading the required Informed Consent Information appearing on the next screen. The survey instrument will then follow. Again, I would like to personally thank you for your time in completing this survey. Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College finlays@mccfl.edu (941) 408-1473 Continue

PAGE 176

165 Appendix B: (Continued) Informed Consent Social and Behavioral Sciences University of South Florida Information for People Who Take Part in Research Studies The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to take part in a minimal risk research study. Please read this carefully. If you do not understand anything, please contac t the person in charge of the study. Title of Study: Faculty Development Practices at Florida's Public Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administ rators, Faculty Development Practitioners, and Full-Time Faculty Members. Principal Investigator: Susan S. Finlay Study Locations(s): University of South Florida. You are being asked to participate because yo u are a voting member of the Council of Instructional Affairs at one of Florida's public community colleges. General Information about the Research Study: The purpose of this research is: to identify faculty development practices that are currently offered to full-time faculty employed at each of Flor ida's public community colleges to determine if the size of the full-time faculty population at each of Florida's 24 public community colleges influenc es the number and type of faculty development practices offered to assess the participants views of the perceived value of each faculty development practice offere d at their institution to investigate if the views differ among the chief academic officers, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty. Plan of Study: You will be asked, with your inform ed consent, to complete a survey on the faculty development practices offered at your institution and to indicate the value that you perceive those activities to have on faculty development. The survey can be completed in 15 minutes or less. Payment for Participation: You will not be paid for your participation in this study.

PAGE 177

166 Appendix B: (Continued) Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study: Although you will not receive a direct personal benefit from this study, participation may help you to increase your knowledge of faculty development. Risks of Being a Part of This Research Study: There are no known risks. The researcher does not anticipate any physical psychological, and/ or social risk for participation in this study. Precautions to minimize these risks include informed consent, voluntary participation, and confidentiality ensured through anonymity. Confidentiality of Your Records: Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the extent of the law. Authorized personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Board may inspect the records from this research pr oject. The results of this study may be published. However, the survey responses yo u provide will be co mbined with others in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any information that would personally identify you in any way. Your responses to the survey will be written directly to a database and maintained by the principal investigator. Only authorized persons will be granted access to the files. Survey responses will be reported in the a ggregate, not as individual responses. Volunteering to be Part of this Research Study: Your decision to participate in this research study is completely voluntary. You are free to participate in this research study or to withdraw at any time. If you choose not to participate, or if you withdraw, there will be no penalty. Questions and Contacts: If you have any questions about this research study, contact Susan S. Finlay at 941-408-1473 or finlays@mccfl.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact a member of the Division of Re search Compliance of the University of South Florida at 813-974-5638. Consent to Take Part in This Research Study: I agree to the following: • I have fully read this informed cons ent form describing a research project. • I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers. • I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and benefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. • I understand that proceeding to the survey, by c licking on the Continue button below, will serve in lieu of signing a copy of this informed consent form. • I understand that I can print out a copy of this consent form for my safekeeping.

PAGE 178

167 Appendix B: (Continued) For security purposes and to maintain the integrity of this survey please enter a unique code composed of at least of four numbers and four letters in any order. i.e. A4e5&r32 Security Code Continue

PAGE 179

168 Appendix B: (Continued) Please indicate the college to which you are affiliated: Select Campus: Valencia

PAGE 180

169 Appendix B: (Continued) Criminal Justice Institute Submit Downtown Center Submit East Campus Submit McCoy Submit Osceola Submit West Campus Submit Winter Park Submit

PAGE 181

170 Appendix B: (Continued) CURRENT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES IN FLORIDA’S PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES Instructions On the next several pages you will find a series of practices that institutions have used to provide faculty development opportunities for their faculty. Some of these may currently be offered at your institution while others might suggest new ideas for faculty development that might be valuable. As you read through the list, please do two things: 1. Mark the appropriate box to the left to indicate your view of the value of each practice to you where 1 represents no value and 5 represents significant value. 2. Mark the appropriate box to the right of the practice to indicate if your institution has offered this practice to faculty in the last three years : Yes Unsure/don’t know No C o n t in ue

PAGE 182

171 Appendix B: (Continued) 1 General Teaching Enhancement Practices Teaching improvement events using inhouse facilitators Teaching improvement events using nationally recognized speakers. Discussions on teaching-related issues (e.g. brown bag lunches, topical discussion groups). Faculty book club focusing on texts related to teaching and learning. Off-campus teaching improvement retreats. Campus-wide teaching conference (one to three days in length). Intensive summer institutes (three to ten days in length). Hosting a regional or national teaching conference. Co n t in ue

PAGE 183

172 Appendix B: (Continued) 2.Specialized Programs Technology workshops for enhancing instruction or online teaching. New faculty orientation, teaching enhancement workshop, or retreat prior to the start of school. Program on preparing a teaching or promotion portfolio. Workshops for pe rsonal development, such as, interpersonal skills training, stress management, time management, and retirement planning. Mentoring program for newly-hired faculty. Career development program for mid-career faculty. Professional renewal program for senior faculty. Faculty development training workshops for department chairpersons. Requiring either a graduate credit-bearing course on “College Teaching” through an accredited university or an equivalent noncredit-bearing course provided by your institution. Collaborative work groups on campus to facilitate enhanced student learning (e.g. Student Affairs, Departments, and Technical support working together). Collaborative faculty development activities with other institutions. Continue

PAGE 184

173 Appendix B: (Continued) 3.Consultations Consultations available to answer teaching related questions and concerns. Voluntary in-class teaching observations with follow-up feedback. Assistance with library research, internet research, citation form atting, and statistical analysis for publication. Assistance with exte rnal grant writing activities. Classroom videotaping services with follow-up feedback. Continue

PAGE 185

174 Appendix B: (Continued) 4.Incentives and Awards Tuition assistance for faculty. Course reductions for faculty to encourage teaching improvement projects. Incentives to encourage faculty to do research that might lead to grants, publications, or conference presentations. Funds for travel to prof essional conferences. Salary or rank advancement for completion of graduate, and under certain conditions, undergraduate coursework to reward faculty advancing their knowle dge in their field. Salary or rank advancement for completion of on/off campus semina rs, workshops, or conferences. Salary or rank advancement for completion of recognized work experience, travel experience, and other pr ofessional activities related to their teaching. Faculty grants program to support the purchase of research materials and equipment or instructional materials. Outstanding teaching awards program. Continue

PAGE 186

175 Appendix B: (Continued) 5.Time Away From Campus Teaching fellowship program (semester or year in length). Release program to work in industry. Exchange program with faculty at another institution. Faculty leaves or sabbaticals. Continue

PAGE 187

176 Appendix B: (Continued) 6.Educational Resources Publish or disseminate newsletters on teaching. Website containing faculty development materials. Lending library of faculty development resources (e.g. books, journals, newsletters, videotapes). Resource guide containing valuable information about teaching and learning unique to the institution. Online or videotaped self-paced faculty development programs or materials. Please list below any additional practices that you feel would be valuable to faculty development if implemented: Continue

PAGE 188

177 Appendix B: (Continued) Demographic Information 1. Male Female 2. Number of years teaching in higher education? None Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years 10-19 years 20-29 years 30 or more years 3. Length of time at your current institution? Less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-9 years 10-19 years 20 or more years 4. Please select your disciplin e area or the discipline to which you are most closely assigned. Your institution may not catego rize disciplines in the same manner or your discipline may not be represented please make the best possible selection. Natural Sciences (e.g., Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Planetary Science) Mathematics and Computer Science Social Sciences (e.g., Anthropology, Archaeology, Econ omics, Geography, History, Political Science, Psychology, Sociology) Humanities and Arts (e.g., Cultural Studies, Art, Creative Writing, Dance, Film Studies and Film Criticism, Linguistics, Literature, Music, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Women's Studies) Professions / Occupational and Applied Sciences (C ertificates/A.S./A.A.S.) (e.g., Architecture and Environmen tal Design, Business, Education, Engineering, Electronics, Agriculture, Forestry, Family and Consumer Science, Journalism and Mass Communications, Law, Library and Information Science, Military Science, Public Affairs and Community Service) Nursing and Other Allied Health Related Fields (e.g., Radiography, Dent al Hygiene, Occupation al Therapy, Physical Therapy) Continue

PAGE 189

178 Appendix B: (Continued) 5. In coordinating Faculty Development at your institution, who assists you in your efforts? Please check all that apply: Faculty Development Practitioner. Team/committee designated to work with you on Faculty Development. Staff member designated to work with you on Faculty Development. 6. Do you also teach any classes? No Yes If yes, how many cred it hours per year do you teach? 7. Does your Faculty Development Prog ram have a recurring line item budget? No Yes If yes, what is the approximate current amount? In the last 3 years, has this approximate amount: Increased Remained the same Decreased 8. As of July 1, 2004 the Florida Admini strative Code 6A-14.029 on Staff and Program Development has been revised. Two primary deletions were made. The deletion of the two (2%) percent allocation requirem ent and the SPD report to the State. In light of these recent deletions, how do you foresee your allocation of funds for staff and program de velopment being affected? Significant increase Increase Remain the same Decrease Significant decrease Co n t in ue

PAGE 190

179 Appendix B: (Continued) I want to personally thank you for taking just a few minutes of your time to complete this survey. I hope that it provided you wi th a few new ideas for your institution’s faculty development. Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College finlays@mccfl.edu (941) 408-1473

PAGE 191

180 Appendix C: Email to NCSPOD Board of Directors Dear Colleague: My name is Susan S. Finlay and I am a fu ll-time faculty member at Manatee Community College, as well as, a doctoral candidate in Hi gher Education at the University of South Florida. I am writing to you because of your in terest and expertise in faculty development as suggested by your membership on the NCSPO D Board of Directors. I am currently in the process of developing an instrument fo r my dissertation titled, “Faculty Development Practices at Florida’s Public Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administrators, Faculty Deve lopment Practitioners, and Full-Time Faculty Members”. This instrument is to be ad ministered at each of Florida’s public community colleges. I am conducting this research to document th e current faculty development practices offered at these institutions, and to compare the perceived value of these practices among administrators, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty. I am seeking your input in the initial stages of instrument development. At this point in my work I am specifically interested in identifying areas of am biguity or omission. I would greatly appreciate your assistance by reading the attached survey instrument. Should you identify areas of ambiguity or facu lty development practices that have been omitted, please let me know. For your c onvenience you can do this by sending me an email, fax, or letting me know that you would like to talk, in which case I would be glad to call you on a date and time you provide. Any additional suggestions that you would care to provide would be welcome. If you have questions regarding this instrume nt, please contact me, Susan S. Finlay, by email at finlays@mccfl.edu by phone at (941) 408-1473, by fax at (941) 497-7698, or you may contact my doctoral advisor, Jim Eison, Ph. D. at jeison@tempest.coedu.usf.edu In advance, I thank you sincerel y for your time and assistance. Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College 8000 South Tamiami Trail Venice, FL 34293 finlays@mccfl.edu Phone: (914) 408-1473 Fax: (941) 497-7698

PAGE 192

181 Appendix D: Email To Survey Respondents Dear Faculty Colleague: My name is Susan S. Finlay and I am a fu ll-time faculty member at Manatee Community College, as well as, a doctoral candidate at th e University of South Florida. I am in the process of collecting data fo r my dissertation titled, “Facu lty Development Practices at Florida’s Public Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administrators, Faculty Development Practitioners, and Full-Time Faculty Members”. Thus, I am conducting research to document the current faculty de velopment practices offered in our community colleges, and assess the percei ved value of these practices among administrators, faculty development practitioners, and full-time faculty members. By completing the survey you will help your in stitution provide faculty development that best suits your personal needs and contribute to a better und erstanding of the extent of faculty development practices in the state of Florida. And, as you may know, this is important for two reasons: 1) the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, our accrediting agency, requires institutions to provide “evidence of ongoing professional development of faculty as teachers, scholar s and practitioners”, and 2) the State of Florida’s Administrative Code (FAC) 6A -14.029 calls for each Florida community college to adopt policies on staff and program development and “shall identify within its annual operating budget funding to support staff and program development activities.” This questionnaire should take between 10-15 minutes of your time. Your responses will of course be anonymous. Please complete the survey by December 10, 2004. A summary of the findings will be published and if you w ould like, will be made available to you. In advance, thank you for your help. If you have questions regarding this surve y, please contact me, Susan S. Finlay at finlays@mccfl.edu or you may contact my doctoral advisor, Jim Eison, Ph. D. at JEison@tempest.coedu.usf.edu To complete the survey please point your brow ser to the following site by either clicking on the link below or by copying and pas ting the address in your browser: http://faculty.mccfl.e du/survey/welcome.htm Thank you for your time and effort in completing this survey! Sincerely, Susan S. Finlay, Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College 8000 South Tamiami Trail, Venice, FL 34293 finlays@mccfl.edu

PAGE 193

182 Appendix E: Second Email to Survey Respondents Dear Faculty Colleague: Two weeks ago I sent you an email introduci ng myself, Susan S. Finlay, and requested your assistance in my doctoral dissertation da ta collection. If you ha ve already responded to my survey, I want to thank you for being ge nerous with your time. As the information collected is confidential, I needed to send th is reminder to all part icipants. If, however, you have not had the chance to respond to my survey, there is still time left. As a reminder of my research, please recall that my dissertation is titled, “Faculty Development Practices at Florida’s Pub lic Community Colleges: Perceptions of Academic Administrators, Faculty Devel opment Practitioners, and Full-Time Faculty Members”. By completing the survey you will help your institution provide faculty development that best suits your personal n eeds and contribute to a better understanding of the extent of faculty development practices in the state of Florida. This questionnaire should take between 10-15 minutes of your time. Your responses will of course be anonymous. Please complete the survey by December 10, 2004. A summary of the findings will be published and if you w ould like, will be made available to you. In advance, thank you for your help. If you have questions regarding this surve y, please contact me, Susan S. Finlay at finlays@mccfl.edu or you may contact my doctoral advisor, Jim Eison, Ph. D. at JEison@tempest.coedu.usf.edu To complete the survey please point your brow ser to the following site by either clicking on the link below or by copying and pas ting the address in your browser: http://faculty.mccfl.e du/survey/welcome.htm Thank you for your time and effort in completing this survey! Sincerely, Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College 8000 South Tamiami Trail Venice, FL 34293 finlays@mccfl.edu

PAGE 194

183 Appendix F: Invitation to Pa rticipate in Focus Group Email to Pilot Study Respondents Dear Faculty Colleague: Four weeks ago I sent you an email introdu cing myself, Susan S. Finlay, and requested your assistance in my doctoral dissertati on data collection. If you responded to my survey, I want to thank you for being gene rous with your time. I would now like to request your assistance again and hope that you will consider joining in on a focus group from the pilot study. The purpose of this focus group is to get f ace-to-face reactions from you regarding your participation in the survey. I would like to identify any possible problems or misunderstandings you had while completing th e survey. I would like to specifically discuss any questions that we re left unanswered, any vague terms, or any additional difficulties you had while taking the survey. Th is feedback will help me to detect any problems that need to be explored further for necessary changes. I would like to put together th is focus group within the next two weeks sometime near the lunch hour as I would like to provide you with lunch. I hope to take less than an hour of your time, including lunch. If you could please reply that you will or will not be willing to participate if a mutually convenient time can be found I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time and effort in completing the survey and I hope to receive your favorable reply to participate in the focus group! Sincerely, Susan S. Finlay Associate Professor of Sociology Manatee Community College 8000 South Tamiami Trail Venice, FL 34293 finlays@mccfl.edu

PAGE 195

184 About the Author Susan Sparling Finlay received a Bach elor’s Degree in Sociology and Human Resources from Eckerd College in 1985 and a M. A. in Sociology from University of South Florida in 1990. She is currently an A ssociate Professor of Sociology at Manatee Community College in Venice, Florida. Prio r to her Florida position, she was Assistant Professor of Sociology and Psychology at Su ffolk Community College in Selden, New York. She is married with one son and lives in her hometown of Sarasota, Florida.