Report and Recommendations from the IUPUI
Task Force on Faculty and Senior Staff Development
June 24, 1998
Task Force History and Charge
Since receiving its charge from William Schneider, President of the IUPUI Faculty Council, and William M. Plater, Dean of the Faculties, the Task Force to Review Faculty and Senior Staff Development, composed of twenty-three faculty and staff representing the IUPUI community (see attached), met on seven different occasions to address the variety of tasks with which it had been charged (December 12, 1997; January 23, 1998; February 3, 13, 27; March 13; and April 17). The committee understood that faculty and senior staff development includes those University programs which present the opportunity for each faculty member to reach the goals of the University and beyond. In developing this definition of faculty and senior staff development, the members of the task force addressed a number of issues: Should faculty development be defined in terms of University goals or individual faculty goals? Should it be designed to help faculty achieve what is "above and beyond" general expectations or should it focus on making sure all faculty reach a certain level of performance? Should faculty development programs be on a competitive basis or should they be available to all who are interested in such changes? In terms of structural and long-range issues, the ways in which these questions are answered will determine the recommendations that can be made for, and implemented by, the campus.
The task force understood its charge to include a review of those programs and opportunities available University-wide that are designed to promote and support faculty and senior staff development. Another part of the charge to the task force was to make recommendations concerning the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps that may exist in the currently available programs. To this end, the task force identified twenty-eight different programs or offices offering support for faculty and/or senior staff development and solicited information from each. The task force also met with Dr. David Piper, consultant to the Center on Teaching and Learning, to discuss his visions of faculty and staff development from the perspective of the Center (February 3, 1998), and with Prof. Erwin Boschmann, Associate Dean of the Faculties, to discuss faculty and senior staff development from the perspective of the IUPUI Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development (February 13, 1998). A special meeting was held to discuss the candidacy of Dr. David Piper for the position of Director of the Center on Teaching and Learning. That recommendation has already been forwarded to Dean Plater.
Task Force Observations and Recommendations for Consideration
The fact that the task force was able to identify no fewer than twenty-eight different programs or offices offering faculty and/or senior staff development opportunities leads to its first recommendation.
Recommendation: The campus should centralize an electronic data base that tracks all campus faculty and senior staff development opportunities. This data base should be searchable by topics and accessible to all faculty, staff, and administrators. In addition to campus opportunities, it should also contain links to other sources of faculty and senior staff development materials.
Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development
The task force met with Prof. Erwin Boschmann, Associate Dean of the Faculties, who is charged with the oversight of the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development on the IUPUI campus. A number of suggestions arose from this meeting. Dr. Boschmann noted that well over 50% of IUPUI faculty belong to the ranks of associate faculty (over 800 part-timers). During the last visit by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, it was noted that 47% of undergraduate courses at IUPUI were taught by associate faculty. The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development has created a series of four grants for associate faculty to support travel to conferences, for course development, etc. Boschmann also noted that a new committee was formed several years ago in an effort to "institutionalize" associate faculty development, but he added that more structure is necessary. A handbook for associate faculty is also under development and is close to being ready for campus use.
Recommendation: If the campus is to continue to be so heavily dependent upon associate faculty, it needs to provide more support for development, where appropriate, and to provide a more systematic approach to the entire issue of associate faculty development.
Dr. Boschmann noted that the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development has two budgets. One is used to run the office, and the other is for faculty development. The faculty development budget is flexible, containing between $300,000 and $500,000 distributed over approximately 30 categories. Most of these monies are distributed on a competitive basis, with applications considered by a standing committee every four months. Small amounts are available for travel to important conferences, but travel is not a high priority for the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development.
Recommendation: The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development should give serious consideration to adopting some of the funding suggestions made by Dr. David Piper, especially with regard to the use of "block grants" for faculty development, thus effecting "unit" development rather than individual change. While this should not be the only method of funding, it is one that might be utilized alongside the granting of smaller awards.
Prof. Boschmann also noted that many faculty experience a paradigm shift with respect to teaching after they receive tenure, and he emphasized IUPUI's participation in the AAHE project on the "Peer-Review of Teaching," a national project which now includes nearly 20 universities and in which some 12 to 16 departments on this campus participate. A major focus of this project is to put teaching on the same level as research by subjecting it to peer review, both internal and external. Related to this was the recognition that tenured faculty might have special needs for development.
Recommendation: The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development should investigate the campus-wide need for faculty support for teaching initiatives that are targeted at senior, tenured faculty interested in developing new pedagogical and research skills.
There were a number of issues raised about faculty development initiatives for senior IUPUI faculty. Boschmann described an undertaking that Dean Plater and he had initiated involving faculty at the rank of full professor who were at least fifty years old and who had been at IUPUI for ten years or more. These faculty were invited to reply to questions about their reactions to IUPUI's support for their careers, and over fifty did so. Some of that responding group have been invited to meet with President Brand to discuss the concerns which were raised. The major issues were the following: (1) the need for assistance for transition periods, e.g., refocusing research, the expiration of a grant, etc.; (2) support for developing research or curricular materials outside the boundaries of a particular department or school; (3) the need to mentor younger faculty; (4) a sense of senior faculty isolation, such as the lack of a system of
recognition; and (5) finding ways of leaving a legacy. Dr. Boschmann noted that there were very few opportunities for faculty development for senior faculty who teach mainly at the undergraduate upper-level or at the graduate level and who do not have Summer I free to take advantage of some of the opportunities offered by the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development.
Recommendation: This campus should continue this effort, perhaps broadening the scope of the faculty involved, to address the issues noted above. Special emphasis should be given to adding some flexibility in the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development to accommodate the needs of senior faculty who are presently unable to participate in available programs.
Less than 50% of the $300,000 to $500,000 of the budget of the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development went to support research. The major areas of support are in Grants-in-aid of Research, Summer Faculty Fellowships, and the Irwin Research Award. The rate of funding of faculty development requests is approximately 82% of applications received, though many are returned for modification before receiving final approval. Boschmann emphasized that the review process itself is a good faculty development tool. He also noted that he makes every effort to find money to fund good requests, though the system does operate on a first-come, first-served basis.
Recommendation: While it is clear that School-funded sabbaticals will continue to be a major source of research-oriented faculty development, the University needs to identify and develop additional mechanisms for supporting creative scholarly enterprises that at least equal the support given to teaching. Sabbatical leaves come too late to help young, tenure track faculty develop independent research agendas. The University should consider developing pilot research grants that are significant enough to fund major research efforts apart from the support provided by sabbatical leaves.
The Center for Teaching and Learning
Related to the issues associated with the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development is the relationship of that office to the Center for Teaching and Learning, which is still without a Director. Task force members met with David Piper from the Southampton Institute, where he is Head of Multimedia Development, on February 3.
Dr. Piper made a presentation of the major issues that he had identified in his role as consultant to IUPUI's Center on Teaching and Learning, especially as outlined in his paper, "A Strategy for Improving Educational Programs at IUPUI." Based upon the discussions with Dr. Piper, the task force offers the following four recommendations:
Recommendation: In conjunction with the above recommendation regarding the use of "block grants," the campus should strongly consider adopting Dr. Piper's perspective that faculty development is a "line responsibility," i.e., that it is the responsibility of deans. He suggested that an important issue is whether or not the university encourages deans to fill this role. Faculty development should be done at the school level, differentiating between the concerns of young faculty at the beginning of their careers and senior faculty. Schools, at the leadership of their deans, should develop such plans, and the deans should be evaluated on the basis of how well they fulfill those plans.
Recommendation: Critical to the whole issue of faculty development, according to Dr. Piper, is the development of a strong annual appraisal system. The campus should find ways to standardize, as much as possible, the ways in which this annual appraisal is conducted and how it is used in matters related to faculty development.
Recommendation: Steps should be taken to insure that the Center for Teaching and Learning develops into a center for scholarship on teaching, pedagogy, etc., as well as a center which supports individual faculty teaching efforts.
Recommendation: The campus should move as quickly as possible to appoint a Director for the Center for Teaching and Learning and a staff which can help him/her offer the faculty development, scholarship, and pedagogical leadership that the Center should provide for the campus.
According to a 1997 survey conducted by the Associate Faculty Affairs Committee and the IUPUI Public Opinion Laboratory, there are over 700 part-time faculty teaching approximately 50% of the undergraduate courses on this campus. While they have a wide range of professional backgrounds, salaries and motivations for teaching, the typical part-time faculty member has a masters or doctorate degree, has taught at IUPUI for approximately 3 years, and receives a salary of $567.93 per credit hour. Most part-time faculty (71%) teach consistently in one department. Even though over 75% of the associate faculty work full-time off campus, 43% are interested in pursuing full-time academic careers. Those who are not interested in a full-time appointment enjoy their association with the University, but are either professionally engaged elsewhere or are part-time for family or other reasons.
The distinction between the associate faculty who are part-time by choice and those who seek promotion is important because of the way in which each will likely view and respond to faculty development opportunities. It may be desirable that all faculty receive proper administrative support (offices, secretarial support, decent wages, orientation, etc.). In exchange, all faculty could participate in some form of teaching evaluation and minimal skills training/building activities. However, additional developmental resources (grants, awards, research and service opportunities, etc.) will probably not be sought by part-time faculty unless they believe it is important to a long-term academic career with potential for advancement.
Despite the large number of part-time faculty on this campus who teach an extremely large number of students, very few resources are dedicated to their professional support or development. Of the six schools reporting to the task force (eight did not respond), only three acknowledged that they had any form of professional support for their associate faculty. These resources were limited to orientation materials for part-time faculty. Only one school provided mentoring opportunities or designated funds for associate faculty development.
Recommendation: Each School that employs associate faculty should be responsible for developing and implementing appropriate forms of faculty development for associate faculty. Care must be taken to insure that these opportunities are available to all associate faculty and that the proper mechanisms are in place to involve as many as can participate.
Several schools cited computer access as part of their "professional development" for part-time faculty. However, over 50% of the part-time faculty surveyed reported a lack of institutional support beyond secretarial services and a telephone at their School. While these items may not fall under a strict definition of "faculty development," it seems that in the case of part-time faculty, basic institutional support normally enjoyed by full-time faculty such as computers, e-mail, offices, copy cards, voice-mail and parking passes are desperately needed.
Recommendation: Each School should insure that its associate faculty receive basic administrative support (offices, secretarial support, orientation, etc.). Guidelines for developing these necessities should be established at the campus level and duplicated by the Schools.
At the campus level, The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development does offer some faculty development resources for part-time faculty. These come in the form of grants, awards, and, to a lesser extent, conference travel money. Over the last two years only 13 part-time faculty have received awards, compared to 185 full-time. The awards to part-time faculty are considerably smaller than those to full-time. Full-time faculty members who received an award within the last two years were granted approximately $2,600 each in funds. Part-time faculty received, on average, between $500 and $700. This is due in part to the fact that the awards for which part-time faculty are eligible are smaller than those available to full-time. In addition, the survey reports that at least 90% of part-time faculty do not even realize that the awards are available. There has been an Associate Faculty Committee organized by the Office to address some of these issues. Apart from a small administrative stipend, however, the committee does not receive funds which could be directed to assist part-time faculty.
The Schools and the University need to enhance both institutional support and development resources for associate faculty. Designated, line-item budgets in both places may be required to provide departments and the campus with the necessary finances to address their part-time faculty needs. Such development is recommended for four different levels:
Recommendation: All associate faculty should receive some form of "Orientation" to the campus and School. Campus funds for proper campus and School/department orientation and office support should be allocated according to the entire number of part-time faculty on campus for this phase. Financial incentives for both the faculty and their departments should be given for participation and satisfactory completion.
Recommendation: Associate faculty should be integrated as fully as possible into the unit with which they work. A combination of designated departmental funds and campus matching grants could provide professional development resources for part-time faculty to maintain or continue skill building and training.
Recommendation: A competitive system of grants, promotions and/or awards based on merit, service, and achievement at the School and campus level should be provided for associate faculty. Associate faculty who are interested in pursuing an academic career should be able to distinguish themselves through these rewards.
Recommendation: If possible, the campus might consider the establishment of an Office for Associate Faculty Affairs that would coordinate, advertise, and promote campus development opportunities for associate faculty. This office could also function as a clearing house for awards, grants, and other benefits for associate faculty.
Non-Tenure Track Full Time Faculty
The non-tenure track faculty on campus are composed of faculty on the clinical tracks, scientist tracks, the research associate group, and the lecturer tracks. There are 244 individuals in the clinical track (13 clinical professors, 59 clinical associate professors, and 172 clinical assistant professors. This group is promoted based on service (to the institution and to patients) and teaching.
There are 92 faculty in the scientist tracks (5 scientists, 13 associate scientists, and 74 assistant scientists). They are promoted based on research accomplishments, with no requirement for teaching or service.
There are 54 lecturers, 4 clinical lecturers, and 12 visiting lecturers. This group is presumed to be most active in teaching.
The IR93 (research associate) rank is heterogenous, wth a fairly large number acting as senior post-doctoral researchers. An additional group serves as senior laboratory administrators. There is no promotion in rank, with some individuals remaining in rank for many years, some leaving after a prolonged period of training, and an occasional individual being appointed to the scientist rank. This represents a sizable number of faculty (557), though many of these individuals have a short-term relationship with the University.
Given the diversity represented within these groups, it is very difficult to determine what campus-wide resources are available. Many of the funding offerings of the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development seem to be limited to tenured or tenure track faculty. However, it appears that any of the symposia on faculty development/promotion/teaching are available to non-tenure track faculty.
For the clinical track faculty, one form of development that is in place is the series of continuing medical, dental, etc. education (CME, CDE, etc.). This is relevant to maintaining professional competency rather than faculty development per se. These activities are coordinated by the various departments and Schools.
Non-tenure track and scientist track faculty are able to apply for support from the Biomedical Research Support grant committee. This committee has NIH funds that can be used for pilot projects, bridge funding, and for faculty who are changing the direction of their research. This amounts to about $150,000 per year. Non-tenured and scientist track faculty are also eligible to apply for Research Infrastructure Fund money for purchase of shared equipment, etc. However, it is likely that more senior and usually tenured faculty spearhead these applications.
The School of Medicine offers an orientation program for all new faculty and provides a "Survival Manual" to them. This is not limited to tenure track faculty. There is an annual 2-day course called Biostatistics for Physicians that is sponsored by the Biostatistics Division that has been useful for clinical investigators. In a similar vein, the Department of Medicine has established a two year long course for the training of its fellows. This course meets weekly for one hour and covers a variety of research and faculty development issues (e.g., institutional regulations, research ethics, biostatistics, use of computers, recombinant DNA), although this has not been used by the faculty to any large extent.
Based upon the observations made above, the task force makes the following recommendations broken down by group:
Recommendation for Clinical Track Faculty: The clinical track faculty would most benefit from the opportunity to develop teaching skills. These are generally non-traditional teaching skills (i.e., at the bedside). Perhaps the best model for this teaching is the Stanford Faculty Development course. Dr. Debbie Litzelman in the Department of Medicine runs this course on a yearly basis for the internal medicine housestaff and a small number of faculty. This should be expanded to include the clinical faculty more systematically. Some clinical faculty have more extensive teaching responsibilities and need to be more aware of what is available at the Center for Teaching and Learning.
Recommendation for Scientist Track Faculty: The scientist track faculty needs to know of the local research expertise that is available for collaboration and advice. The faculty research interests are currently available through Info-Smarts-Genius, but this may not be utilized very much by School of Medicine or Science faculty. The other big area for improvement is probably instruction in writing manuscripts and grants. Symposia or short workshops would probably be valuable to this group.
Tenure Track Faculty
The Deans of all the Schools on campus were requested to provide the following information to the task force:
(1) How many tenure track faculty and/or librarians who have not yet reached tenure do you have in your School?
(2) What percentage of your whole faculty does this constitute?
(3) What faculty development resources are directed at this group?
Ten Schools replied to this request, and the task force discovered that there is great variety among the types of support which are available for that group.
Allied Health Sciences, whose 3 tenure track faculty constitute 5 to 10% of their total, notes that the level of support provided by the School varies according to the profile of the individual faculty member. The most common forms of faculty development sources are internal faculty development grants; sponsorship for national presentations; start-up equipment; summer release for research; reduced teaching load; and graduate assistants.
Among the various forms of support noted by the School of Education, whose 7 tenure track faculty constitute 28% of their total, were support for travel, course release, technology resources, mentoring, third-year review, etc.
Herron School of Art reported that no resources were specifically reserved for the 8 tenure track faculty that constitute 33% of their total. Likewise, the School of Journalism, reporting that it had no tenure track faculty at the present, identified no resources allocated to this group.
The School of Liberal Arts, whose 33 tenure track faculty comprise 21% of their total, offers each person two courses released first year, one per year until tenure, new computer equipment, $500 for library acquisitions, and a departmental mentor.
The School of Library and Information Science reported that each of its 2 tenure track members (57% of their faculty) has 2 faculty mentors and receives annual reviews.
The School of Medicine, with the largest number of tenure track faculty on the campus, 203 (21% of their total), does not have an official office for faculty development. Most existing programs are departmentally based. The Office of the Dean has sponsored several faculty development programs in the past several years. Research for tenure track faculty is generally supported at the departmental level by "start-up funds." These funds allow purchase of equipment and supplies, hiring of research associates or technicians, and support for the faculty salary. Often this support is extended for three years, after which the faculty member is expected to secure extramural research funding. This start-up money is provided by the Dean or from clinical revenues.
The School of Nursing has 10 tenure track faculty comprising 11% of their total. Each of these receives $2000 to fund scholarship, a decreased teaching load for the first two years, a senior faculty mentor, and a review in the third year.
Physical Education provides its 5 tenure track faculty (33% of their total)
with one course released per year, internal research funds, travel support, and peer mentoring.
University Libraries, with 9 tenure track librarians (4% of their total), offers this group support to attend conferences and workshops and notes that they are eligible to apply for an eight-week leave with pay after two years.
As the previous data demonstrate, tenure track faculty, who constitute approximately 25-30% of the total IUPUI faculty, receive a variety of faculty development opportunities. The two most common seem to be released time from teaching and faculty mentors. Financial support for research seems rather limited, except for the start-up packages commonly offered by several of the Schools.
Recommendation: The campus should encourage Schools to develop specific policies for allocating resources to tenure track faculty development where these do not already exist. Schools should be encouraged to share information about their faculty development policies for this group, but the final decisions about resource allocation should remain at the School level.
In addition, the task force received the following information from the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development:
The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development funded the following number of applicants for AY 94/95-96/97:
Academic Year Tenure Track Applicants Tenured Applicants
96/97 41 (51%) 40 (49%)
95/96 41 (52.5%) 37 (47.5%)
94/95 41 (56%) 32 (44%)
During that same time period, the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development denied funding to the following number of proposals:
Academic Year Tenure Track Applicants Tenured Applicants
96/97 15 (65%) 8 (35%)
95/96 14 (56%) 9 (44%)
94/95 13 (62%) 8 (38%)
In terms of total dollar amounts, these percentages amount to the following monies spent for faculty development:
Academic Year Amounts Awarded Amounts Denied
96/97 $263,511 $91,201
95/96 $212,298 $97,735
94/95 $278,953 $80,562
TOTAL $754,762 $269,498
Though some 25-30% of the faculty receive over 50% of the funding provided by the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development, it also seems that this represents a major campus source of funding for this group.
Recommendation: The Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development should continue its support of tenure track faculty and work to develop additional support opportunities for tenured faculty.
Tenured Senior Faculty
Several concerns were identified with regard to senior faculty development. First, there do not appear to be mechanisms in place to recognize accomplishments of full professors. While the accomplishments of junior faculty are acknowledged in the promotion and tenure process, the accomplishments of senior faculty are often not recognized or "used" to advance professional goals. Second, although financial support for faculty is available through the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development, the funds appear to be associated with distinct categories, each of which carries with it certain limitations on the use of the funds (equipment grants, undergraduate research grants, urban research awards). Consequently, there is very little available to address the needs of senior faculty. Third, other funding mechanisms such as the Strategic Directions Initiatives (SDIs) are similarly "targeted" at special projects and are not available to the majority of senior faculty. However, it is likely that most senior faculty look outside the University for support, particularly in research, but also for teaching projects.
In order to assess further the needs of senior faculty, the task force recommends that the University:
Recommendation: Identify the number and percentage of the faculty in each School that are tenured/senior faculty and identify the faculty development resources available to this group within each School. This will allow for a determination of whether there is consistency of opportunity for tenured/senior faculty across Schools, and if consistency does not exist, it will allow for the generation of suggestions for insuring consistency of opportunity in the future.
Recommendation: Identify which, if any, of the new campus initiatives are designed to provide tenured/senior faculty with career development opportunities. In a similar vein, identify which, if any, of the SDIs are aimed at expanding career development opportunities for tenured/senior faculty.
Recommendation: Determine whether the current post-tenure review document, in whatever form we currently find it, can be viewed and/or used as a mechanism for career development. This document is targeted at tenured/senior faculty, but whether it can, and will, be used by the faculty themselves and by the administration as an instrument for positive professional change is unclear.
Recommendation: Distribute and analyze results from a survey of tenured/senior faculty (prototype attached) designed to ascertain what opportunities/resources/support are most valued by this group.
Recommendation: In order to facilitate access by the faculty to all of the available development opportunities, it was suggested that the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development develop a home page which briefly describes each opportunity and the eligibility requirement. The use of key words, or dividing the opportunities into categories such as research, teaching, and service, would facilitate faculty searches through the home page.
Senior Staff Development
The subcommittee addressing Senior Staff Development began by defining the primary group to be addressed as professional staff at the PA/PB 16 level and above who link directly with the academic activities of the campus. The subcommittee noted that this population would be refined further based on the results of a training needs assessment process. Such an analysis will be based on job competencies required to carry out the responsibilities of professional positions. Topics for training will be identified and prioritized, efforts which will lead to the identification of those who need such training, especially those staff who link directly to faculty and the academic mission of the university.
Recommendation: The University should complete this needs analysis and identify the staff who require additional training to be able to fulfill the demands of their positions.
Utilizing the results of the "1997 IUPUI Staff Survey" conducted by the Office of Information Management and Institutional Research, Human Resources Administration will develop a comprehensive campus plan for staff training and development at IUPUI.
Recommendation: Human Resources Administration should develop a campus plan for staff training and complete its inventory of training opportunities currently available to staff.
As a result of the staff survey noted above, three areas of development were identified for improvement:
• Staff development and training;
• Rewards and recognition;
• Development of supervisory skills.
Recommendation: Human Resources Administration should develop methods for improving staff development and training, methods for rewarding and recognizing staff accomplishments, along with programs to increase supervisory skills among staff and faculty.
Human Resources Administration has identified the following developmental initiatives for senior professional staff and faculty:
• leadership training for faculty who supervise/manage staff, especially faculty who serve as chairs and department heads, as well as appropriate senior professional staff;
• a summer Leadership Training Institute at IUPUI which would incorporate the Strategic Directions Initiative proposal for such an institute. This institute would be designed to build senior staff administrative knowledge and skills;
• an initial orientation, followed by a structured acculturation process and an ongoing networking program for senior professional staff. The orientation would have individualized components to respond to the one-of-a-kind roles of many senior professional staff:
• initial one-on-one connections are essential;
• pre-packaged components (e.g., on-line access to statistics about campus, its goals, priorities, history) permit self-paced learning about the institution;
• on-going structured programming (e.g., regular luncheon--or breakfast--series with University and campus leaders, presentations by key units, etc.) encourage the socialization process and keep senior staff connected to campus life and to each other;
• the current Administrative Council can be used as a vehicle to provide a continuing forum for professional staff development.
Recommendation: Human Resources Administration should develop the appropriate means to insure that supervisory faculty and staff receive the necessary training. Special emphasis should be given to developing the administrative knowledge and skills of senior staff. Such efforts should be sustained through a variety of methods to insure that senior staff are updated on the latest developments on campus.
The task force concludes that the campus administration is making a very concerted effort to support faculty and senior staff as they face increasing changes and demands within the University. The observations and recommendations noted above are made with the understanding that the continued development of faculty is one of the most important aspects of preparing the University for demands it will face in the twenty-first century. While it is probable that many of the recommendations will not be implemented, it is hoped that each will be given serious discussion and consideration.
E. Theodore Mullen, Jr.
Professor and Chair
List of Task Force Members
Andrew Barth, Science
Victoria Champion, Nursing
David Crabb, Medicine
Janice Froehlich, Medicine
Larry Goldblatt, Dentistry
Sharon Hamilton, Liberal Arts
Laura Jenski, Science
Gwendolyn Johnson, Business
Juanita Keck, Nursing
Chris Keeley, Human Resources Administration
T. K. Li, Medicine
Joyce Martin, Medicine
Lyn Means, Medicine
Ted Mullen, Jr., Liberal Arts, Chair
Laura Nehf, Associate Faculty Coordinator
Bob Orr, Engineering and Technology
Michael Parsons, Education
Eric Sawyer, Science
George Stookey, Dentistry
Philip Tompkins, University Library
Rosalie Vermette, Liberal Arts
Marion Wagner, Social Work
Amy Warner, Community Learning Network
Barbara Wilcox, Education
Prototype of Survey for Senior Faculty Development
Prototype of survey to be distributed to tenured/senior faculty:
The goal of faculty development is to provide faculty with the opportunity to improve or further develop their expertise in the areas of teaching, research, and/or service. In an effort to determine what types of opportunities/resources/support are most valued by the faculty, we ask that you take a couple of minutes to fill out and return the enclosed questionnaire. Thank you for your help.
1. Have you participated in any faculty development
offerings/programs over the past year and, if so, which ones?
2. Have you ever taken a sabbatical leave and, if so, how many times?
3. What faculty development offerings/opportunities/programs would you find most useful?
4. How much time are you able to devote to personal career
____ hours per semester
____ days per year
5. If career development opportunities requiring an extended
time commitment are offered, is it best to schedule them:
____ during the summer
____ biweekly throughout the semester during the day
____ biweekly throughout the semester during the
____ biweekly throughout the semester on weekends
6. Have you ever organized a faculty development offering and, if
so, in what area (on what topic)?
7. Which of the following would serve to increase the probability
that you would participate in a faculty development offering of
interest to you?
____ financial remuneration
____ minimal eligibility criteria
____ open enrollment (reduced competition)
____ recognition/appreciation of your participation
by your administrative unit
____ evidence that participation would positively
influence your career
____ other, please specify
8. In which of the following ways would you prefer to receive
information regarding the availability of faculty development
____ campus mail
____ metro mailer
____ a brochure from the Office of Faculty and Senior Staff Development listing all opportunities
____ a brochure or flier describing each separate offering
____ through your Dean or Department Chair
____ other, please specify