Evaluation of Faculty and Faculty Development In Nursing Education Part II
Faculty Development in Nursing Education, Faculty Scholarship in Nursing Education
Faculty Development in Nursing Education
Faculty development begins with orientation to the university or college, school, and department or division in this orientation, faculty begins the process of socialization into the academy. They are introduced to the mission and goals of the institution and school at each level represented in the structure.
Expectations are reviewed and any documents that will reinforce and guide movement toward those expectations are shared. For example, new faculty are usually given the institutional handbook that contains general policies and teaching, service, and research expectations. Support systems and personnel available to maintain them are introduced and a tour of the physical plant is conducted.
More specific orientation occurs at each level. In addition to faculty development offerings at the campus and institutional levels, the school or department may offer a series of open and planned sessions for new and continuing faculty. The focus of the sessions may be related to common concerns, concerns identified through a needs analysis, or issues related to changes in the school.
For example, many schools are offering regular sessions on the use of new technology as it is acquired. It may be necessary to offer faculty development related to policy changes, curriculum changes, or any other new development in the school or institution. Once orientation is completed, faculty should receive support for professional development.
Universities may have an office of research to assist faculty in research efforts or may have teaching centers or technology experts to assist faculty in their teaching role. Use of travel monies and planning that encourages faculty to attend conferences, seminars, and research colloquia are important parts of development and should be implemented and tracked as a part of the evaluation effort.
An increasing number of schools are developing mentoring programs that may provide generalist mentoring or specific mentoring in research and teaching. Mentoring is a multidimensional activity that consists of highly individualized dyadic processes and relationships. The ideal mentor is dedicated to helping the mentee develop in both a personal and professional way.
The attributes of the mentor include credibility, trustworthiness, generosity, and the possession of qualities that the mentee wants to emulate (Carey & Weissman, 2010), the mentor and mentee develop a reciprocal relationship in which there is a knowledge differential between participants, and a relationship effect beyond the mentor relationship.
Mentors listen, affirm, advise, encourage, seek input, and help the novice develop status and career direction. Whatever the view of the mentor, the role needs to be clear to the mentor and mentee and allow for individualization. In large schools, the assignment of a mentor may occur at the department level. In smaller schools, the assignment is often the responsibility of a central administrator or a school committee of faculty.
It is common for a senior faculty member to be assigned as a mentor for a period of 1 year, with continuing assignment based on individual need or the development plan. Each member of the mentoring dyad should evaluate the nature and effectiveness of the mentoring relationship at the end of the year or at regular intervals if the relationship extends beyond the year.
The role of the mentor may vary by institution, but common functions include advice and counsel, review of course materials, observation of instruction, assistance in processing evaluation data, modeling master teaching, encouragement, and coaching. Those who provide mentoring for research often assist the faculty members in accessing support systems on campus identifying funding sources and developing a research focus.
The mentor can also serve as a resource as the mentee progresses in meeting promotion and tenure expectations. The purpose of the relationship is generally consultative and constructive; however, some schools may prefer a more directed, prescriptive approach, especially with new faculty. To create safety and opportunity for faculty development, the mentor does not become an evaluator.
Finally, larger schools may have their own department of continuing education. In those schools, one expectation of that department may be to participate in faculty development. Through continuing education, a department may offer a series of workshops related to teaching strategies, test construction, evaluation, or other issues of concern to faculty in general.
These are usually open to others as well to create a more diverse mix of participants and to provide fiscal support to the department. Some continuing education departments assist faculty in hosting conferences related to their areas of expertise and cosponsor research colloquia or other events that serve faculty in their professional development and provide an opportunity for faculty to share their professional expertise as presenters.
Faculty Scholarship in Nursing Education
Faculty achievements in scholarly activity should support program effectiveness. Many schools use Boyer’s (1990) model of scholarship as a basis for evaluating faculty scholarship. Knowledge development (the scholarship of discovery) and the scholarship of teaching are essential to the academy and are an expectation for all faculty. Those who select research as their area of excellence will be measured against criteria established within the school or division.
Those criteria will need to withstand the scrutiny of peer review both within and beyond the discipline. The volume of research and publications is less important than the quality of the effort. Some committees ask faculty to select two or three of their best research studies and best publications for review rather than submitting the entire body of work for review. This highlights the focus on quality.
An additional expectation is that evidence of both external peer review and review by one’s department chairperson be included in the work submitted for review. Selection of one’s works for publication or presentation is evidence of its value to the reviewers. Where publications appear may also be of importance.
Articles in refereed journals and journals held in high esteem in the discipline are considered evidence of quality review. Before publication, it is important to know the standards of the given institution. Sole authorship versus joint authorship or placement in the listing of authors may be weighted as well. Invited works are often considered evidence of their value.
Some institutions also consider invited creative works such as radio or television productions, videotapes, musical scores, and choreography evidence of scholarship or excellence. Receipt of major awards and other forms of recognition as a leader in one’s field provides compelling evidence of quality. Funding for research, scholarly work, and special projects is widely accepted as evidence of scholarship.
Weighting may be assigned based on the source of the monies. Internal funding may not be weighed as heavily as external funding. External funding may be weighted as well. For example, funding from major foundations or federal programs may receive a more favorable review than several small grants from lesser-known sources.
Whether one is the principal investigator, or a participant may be weighted in the review process. A growing value is attached to applied research that has meaning for a wider audience. Keys to the consideration of any scholarly endeavor are evidence of analysis and synthesis in studies grounded in theory, rather than simple descriptive studies.
Variations occur according to the mission of the institution so that each school must determine criteria within the context of that mission. In the final analysis, scholarly works are best judged by one’s intellectual peers. The scholarship application is demonstrated through professional practice and service. Practice as professional service is an area of emphasis in some institutions, whereas in other institutions faculty believe it is not valued as highly as research.
Again, evidence exists that more and more institutions are attempting to develop criteria to reflect scholarly service and to grant that service the recognition it merits. A common standard of evidence of scholarly clinical practice and clinical competence is national certification in one’s field, especially for those faculty who wish to seek recognition and promotion in the clinical track.
With some variation based on institutional mission, the focus on service is its connection to the faculty member’s professional expertise. Internally, faculty may demonstrate service through participation and leadership in committees and projects within the department or division and, more broadly, at the campus or institutional level.
Committees that affect decision making for innovative enterprises or improvement and policy development demonstrate thoughtful participation. Administrative appointments are generally accepted as evidence of professional service within the institution.
Beyond the institution, faculty may demonstrate service through practice and participation in professional, civic, and governmental organizations relevant to their expertise in a manner that reflects the application of knowledge and the extension and renewal of the discovery element of scholarship.
Examples include providing technical assistance to an agency and analysis of public policy for governmental agencies or private organizations. Joint appointments or contracts with practice agencies that call on professional expertise are other examples. Certainly, faculty-run clinics are a strong example of such a service. Some institutions place applied research in this category of review.
In addition to the listing and description of activities in the area of service, faculty are expected to have documented evidence of the merit or worth of that service. In this area as well, letters from external sources and awards based on service are evidence of merit. Within the institution there is a need for more systematic feedback from those who provide valuable service.
Often faculty receive perfunctory notes of thanks for service that do little to define the value of that service. A practice of thanking those who serve with comments about the special expertise provided and outcomes achieved as a result of that service is a valuable form of evidence. The scholarship of integration is demonstrated through interdisciplinary research, interpreting research findings, and bringing new insight to the field of study.
Presentations to the lay public that serve to advance public knowledge of discipline-related issues, development of new and creative teaching materials and modes of delivery, and professional presentations and publications are examples of integrative scholarship. The scholarship of integration may be evaluated by determining whether the activity reveals new knowledge, illuminates integrative themes, or demonstrates creative insight (Boyer, 1990).
It is not possible for a given faculty member to excel in all areas subject to review within the institution. The Boyer (1990) model attempts to respond to a need to look at scholarship differently and to provide multiple ways for faculty to demonstrate worthy productivity. Research and publication are important elements of the academy and are critical to comprehensive and research universities.
Limiting the focus of faculty evaluation and reward decisions to a single area, however, discounts the valuable work of a diversified faculty. This very diversity and range of expertise enhances the reputation of an institution and enables the wise use of resources.
The obligation of faculty is to provide evidence of scholarly productivity in one or more of the scholarship functions. Institutional leaders are obligated to enable that process and reward positive outcomes.