Faculty Development

Faculty Development in Higher Education
By: Emma R. Brown


Another “hot topic” in higher education is that of faculty development. Faculty development simply refers to faculty members keeping current in teaching in their respective fields through continuing education. This includes issues related to pedagogy, or studying ways to teach and be a teacher. Instructors often become comfortable in the material they teach and the methods they use. This can be harmful both for the instructor and the students. New methods of learning must be embraced as different generations of students enter the world of academia expecting different types of learning environments.

Fink (2003) addresses that almost half of college graduates are not learning basic levels of general knowledge because they are memorizing information for exams and do not retain any of it. Student recall of information declines steadily after the course is over. Fink’s cause for these failures is that faculty, despite their desire for the students to learn, continues to use the same methods of teaching even though it has been proven ineffective. Of course, nothing is ever black and white. Failures fall on students as well when they do not complete assignments, but there are some responsibilities on the instructor to present material in fresh ways.

It can be intimidating to have to go against what one is comfortable with. Blanton and Stylianou (2009) stress how a learners “identity” influences their openness to faculty development (p. 83-84). They go on to explain faculty consists of newcomers and the “old timers,” with newcomers often looking to those who have taught longer for input and ideas on how to teach (p. 83). The problems that can arise here are if the “oldtimers” are stuck on a specific teaching method and unwilling to allow the new faculty to institute change. Most research suggests that more often than not, this is not what halts faculty development. Instead, it is a lack of institutional or departmental support. This is especially necessary in specific fields of learning, where instructors may already feel they are an expert in their field and do not see the need to improve their teaching methods.

Kezar (2009) states in her article that it is unfair to say instructors are resistance to pedagogical changes in higher education because there are too many stakeholders involved that fight over where resources should go. Faculty become so consumed in their normal daily activities that they fail to see the connection between learning new technologies and teaching their students, or they don’t even know the options to learn it are available (Kezar, p. 19). Finding ways to engage the faculty in development, and in some cases challenge their views on teaching can be tricky at best.

Kezar (2009) also states that when faculty development initiatives are completely unconnected to university boards and mission statements, a strain can come about when those in administration feel resources or funding is not going where it “should be.”

It is the opinion of this author that continuing faculty development is crucial for both the faculty and the student population. Students need to be exposed to new methods of teaching and new technologies in the classroom. There are many ways for students to learn successfully. It is also important for faculty to keep themselves current and try new things. Good teachers know that they are always learning, just like their students.

The goal of pedagogical improvements is made easier when it is more than just a single instructor’s decision for self improvement. Kezar (2009) suggests that campuses “can and should” choose what to focus on and what they consider important priorities in campus life and curriculum (p. 21). With a campus wide encouragement and support for continuing development, it will help to motivate instructors to better themselves and possibly even be a push in that direction.

Blanton and Stylianou (2009) also emphasize the need for a “culture of professional development” and making it clear to faculty how to go about faculty development (p. 79). Maintaining improvements in teaching is an ongoing process. In many cases, there are resources available on campus for teachers. The upside is new technologies are made available and explained for use in instruction. The downside is, these centers are multidisciplinary and the focus on general issues in pedagogy can limit development for specific programs.

Stets, Coertjens and Petegem (2010) found that instructional development actually showed greater results for instructors in specific disciplines. Therefore, it is the opinion of this author that specific programs should actively research resources for teachers to study pedagogy in their respective fields, and make that knowledge readily available. If there are no resources locally available, then they should create such opportunities themselves.



Works Cited

Blanton, M. L. and Stylianou, D. A. (2009). Interpreting a Community of Practice Perspectives in Discipline-Specific Professional Development in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 34(2), 79-92.

Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kezar, A. (2009). Change in Higher Education: Not Enough, or Too Much? Change, 41 (6), 18- 23.

Stets, A., Coertjens, L., and van Petegem, P. (2010). Instructional development for teachers in higher education: an impact on teaching approach. Higher Education, 60(2), 187-204.