Monitoring The Pulse of The Faculty: Needs Assessment in Faculty Development Programs

Travis, J. E., Hursh, D., Lankewicz, G., and Tang, L. (1996). Monitoring The Pulse of The Faculty: Needs Assessment in Faculty Development Programs. In L. Richlin (E.d.), To Improve the Academy, Vol. 15 (pp.95-113). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press and the Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education. Key words: Needs Assessment, Faculty Development Programs.

Although needs assessment is a common and necessary element of faculty development programs, the process never seems to be as easy or as effective as we might like it to be. Sadly, the literature is relatively weak in this all-important area of responsibility. Such a problem, no doubt, is due in part to the individual environment of each institution. Based on a presentation at the 1995 POD Conference, this article reviews a number of institutional approaches to gathering data from faculty, which may suggest some options for the reader.

Development of faculty necessitates some procedure for gathering feedback from individuals to target their specific developmental needs. Understandably, institutions with veteran programs and/or directors of faculty development may have an established routine of data gathering that appears to serve the program well. Yet, the variety of personalities and an ever-changing associated political climate may necessitate the consideration of new options or twists to familiar processes of eliciting feedback from the faculty and staff.

Furthermore, a novice faculty development director often has a desperate need for additional background information on the entire process of needs assessment. A relatively inadequate coverage of this all-important topic for faculty developers in the available literature makes the problem even more critical. While a few sources suggest a somewhat comprehensive coverage of the needs assessment topic (Nickens, Purga, & Noriega, 1980; Office of Institutional Development, 1993; Soriano, 1995), the bulk of the literature treats the subject much more superficially (Blackburn, Boberg, O’Connell, & Pellino, 1980; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Fitch & Kopp, 1990; Hilsen & Wadsworth, 1988; Mullins, 1994; Young, 1987).

Consequently, the four of us embarked on an endeavor to partially fill this gap with a presentation at the 1995 POD Conference that would cover the value and methods of determining faculty needs and attitudes. While previously addressed by presenters at earlier conferences, needs assessment is clearly of sufficient importance to warrant revisiting the topic, particularly in print for greater access. The intent is to provide an overview of needs assessment along with at least four institutional applications for critical review and potentially a possible synthesis of “best” options.

Overview of Needs Assessment

Assessment is, essentially, a process for gathering useful and necessary information. The purpose of a specific assessment determines, in large part, how the process will be conducted. Intended to supply practitioners with information relative to potential gaps in services provided for a client population, needs assessment can be a helpful endeavor in a wide range of activities. The particular needs of citizens, patients, customers, passengers, employees, parishioners, audiences, students, and faculty are frequently determined through a range of measurement procedures intended to inform those who can potentially satisfy the identified needs.

Because each campus may have a different approach to doing faculty development, the procedure for conducting needs assessment for faculty development should likewise be variable. The rationale for performing needs assessment as a part of a faculty development program may be based upon insufficient familiarity with faculty or hidden faculty needs. Essentially, the faculty developer requires the necessary information to insure that faculty will participate in and benefit from this highly personal and necessarily voluntary activity. As those well-versed in basic assessment methodology know, the use of multiple data collection methods is preferable for obtaining the most complete representation possible. Similar to other forms of assessment, faculty development needs assessment should maximize the procedures and the sources of applicable data. Some of these sources and procedures are suggested in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Input Resources in Needs Assessment

Institutional Examples

A synopsis of the needs assessment programs at four specific institutions follows. Additional options, suggested by session participants, are also included at the end of this section.

Southeastern Louisiana State University

Among the fastest growing universities in the nation, Southeastern Louisiana State University (Hammond) maintains a faculty development program that is also a function of a faculty committee. Established in 1992, the 22-member committee was charged to provide program advocacy, fund disbursement recommendations, program advisory input, active participation in program events, and program tracking and evaluations.

A faculty development survey, entitled “Professional Development: Your Preference,” was conducted during the spring semester, 1992. Designed with the assistance of the director of outcomes assessment, this survey was the initial endeavor to poll faculty for their faculty development needs. The questionnaire asked faculty what was needed to help them improve the teaching, research, and publication components of their roles.

A total of 155 of the 350 faculty members responded to the survey in the spring of 1992. The results of the survey suggested goals and activities that were assessed and incorporated into the committee’s strategic plan for campus-wide faculty development. Activities were planned and initiated to include workshops, panel discussions, brown bag socials, and an annual professional enhancement workshop featuring national speakers and showcasing the faculty’s accomplishments in development. The effectiveness of each activity was measured with a questionnaire, much as the Ohio State program has done. Results of these event surveys were reviewed by the committee, published, and shared with the faculty.

A content synthesis of faculty perceived needs and interests was used to prioritize program areas of emphasis and to utilize available institutional resources to support the idea of a program model for the campus. Citing the growing interest and involvement in faculty development, the committee fostered the design of a five-year plan to implement a model faculty development program. A crucial component for implementing this five-year plan involved a periodic review and update of needs assessment data. The committee agreed that such re-evaluation of needs would be a continuing and evolving project that would guide the program. In 1993, the committee created an evaluation plan for each component of the five-year plan as well.

One response to the faculty needs identified through the various needs assessment efforts has been the addition of a Faculty Productivity Lab in the campus library. Realizing the importance of technology in teaching, the administration granted funds for hardware and software in the center, with space provided by the library. Since the initiation of the faculty development program, the library faculty have actively participated in faculty development and have perceived themselves playing a key role in meeting faculty needs.

The commitment of both the faculty and the administration has significantly contributed to the establishment of an effective faculty development program. Like other campuses relying on this somewhat cumbersome committee structure, the Southeastern Louisiana program has a goal to metamorphose into a faculty development center with a full-time program. In the meantime, the mission to cater to the professional, instructional, and organizational development needs of the faculty continues.

Other Institutional Approaches

At the National Technical Institute for the Deaf (NTID) at the Rochester Institute for Technology, the use of faculty surveys has been more successful with engineering faculty than with those in the arts and sciences. Faculty generally suggested that they simply be informed of the planned activities and they would decide whether to attend. Furthermore, the survey results often tended to be a determination of what individuals felt they needed for their own personal professional development, as opposed to institutional development. Some faculty developers at other institutions expressed concern that faculty may tend to identify what is important (to them) in their jobs, rather than what they need. To avoid being confined to such personal concerns, some developers suggested focusing more on the perspective of the institutional mission and student learning than on that of the faculty. Another institution has achieved some measure of success, at least in the construction of faculty survey instruments, by involving the university’s college of business, which has designed statistically accurate surveys. A general consensus of the participants in the needs assessment session at the 1995 POD Conference confirmed that surveys generally do not work. The primary drawback seems to be inadequate responses.

Additional recommendations for gathering data on faculty and institutional needs included the use of advisory committees, like those often used for vocational programs, and applications for faculty development mini-grants, where available. Such data can suggest activities that interest faculty or areas that require specific attention.

Critical Analysis and Conclusions

Based on the components of the programs cited and the input from other faculty developers, some common caveats become apparent. First, and most importantly, to best monitor the pulse of the faculty, needs assessment should be conducted on a continuous, timely basis with variable approaches being used for data collection. Similarly, as we have learned from the Classroom Assessment Model (Angelo & Cross, 1993), a response to the feedback provided is necessary to “close the loop” (p. 31). If the feedback is not thus recognized, the next request for feedback is likely to be met with skepticism and fewer responses.

While the survey instrument seems to be the weakest link in providing needs assessment data, it remains the simplest and most cost effective means of collecting the information. Likewise, the information-rich interview technique is much more costly, both in time and in resources. One suggestion to modify the time demands for the interview technique is to consider employing a team of interviewers. However, not only will this approach increase the resource investment, but the results may also be more difficult to manage with the possibility of variable perspectives.

Needless to say, the task of conducting needs assessment for faculty development is neither uncomplicated nor expeditious. Furthermore, the mood and the needs of the faculty are always changing. Like the river in Heraclitus’ profound thought, each assessment is likely to paint a different picture. Hence, the task of assessing faculty needs for development is as incomplete as the development itself.

References

• Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques:Ahandbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Blackburn, R. T., Boberg, A., O’Connell, C., & Pellino, G. (1980). Project for faculty development program evaluation. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of Michigan.
• Eble, K. E., & McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through faculty development: An analysis of effective programs and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Fitch, M. E., & Kopp, O. W. (Eds.). (1990). Staff development for the practitioner: Planning, procedures, practices, and assessment. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
• Hilsen, L., & Wadsworth, E. C. (1988). Staging successful workshops. In E. C. Wadsworth (Ed.), Ahandbook for new practitioners (pp. 45-52). Stillwater, OK: New Forums.
• Mullins, T.W. (1994). Staff development programs: A guide to evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Nickens, J. M., Purga, A. J., & Noriega, P. P. (1980). Research methods for needs assessment. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
• Office of Institutional Development. (1993). Staff development needs assessment. Valencia, CA: College of the Canyons. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376989)
• Soriano, F. I. (1995). Conducting needs assessment: A multidisciplinary approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Young, R. E. (1987). Evaluating faculty development programs: Program goals first. In J. R. Wergin and L. A. Braskamp (Eds.), Evaluating administrative services and programs (New Directions for Institutional Research No. 56) (pp. 71-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

• Contact:

• Jon Travis

• Department of Secondary & Higher Education

• Texas A&M University - East Texas Station

• Commerce, TX 75429 USA

• (903) 886-5607

• (903) 886-5603 FAX

Jon Travis is an Assistant Professor of Secondary and Higher Education and the Director of the Center for Community College Education at Texas A&M University - Commerce.

Daniel Hursh is a Professor of Educational Psychology and one of the coordinators of the Instructional Improvement Network at West Virginia University.

Gentry Lankewicz is the Electronic Services Librarian at the University of South Alabama.

Li Tang is an Instructional Development Specialist at The Ohio State University.

The description of the West Virginia University faculty development program was prepared with the assistance of two other coordinators of the Instructional Improvement Network, Afzel Noore and Esther Gottlieb.

Appendix A

East Texas State University

Spring 1993 Survey Form

Faculty Development Survey

In order to plan effective workshops for the coming year, the Faculty Development Committee is asking that faculty members take a moment to examine the following list of topics which might be considered for future discussion groups. Please select those items in which you might be interested, and number your first four of five choices in order of preference. If none of these topics is of interest, please take a moment to note any topics you might be interested in discussing at a faculty workshop.

• ____ 1. Improving student motivation

• ____ 2. Improving the quality of lectures

• ____ 3. Alternatives to the lecture

• ____ 4. Using collaborative learning

• ____ 5. Teaching critical thinking

• ____ 6. Active learning techniques

• ____ 7. Constructing effective exams

• ____ 8. Improving classroom discussion

• ____ 9. Useful techniques for dealing with large classes

• ____ 10. Planning new courses

• ____ 11. Handling the paper load

• ____ 12. Writing across the curriculum

• ____ 13. Training teaching assistants

• ____ 14. Coping with faculty stress

• ____ 15. Increasing production of scholarly writing

• ____ 16. Dealing with diverse student populations

• ____ 17. Making effective use of small groups

• ____ 18. Developing teaching portfolios

• ____ 19. Assessment alternatives to the exam

Other ideas:

Appendix B

East Texas State University

Fall I995 Survey Form Faculty

Development Survey

Please indicate your prior participation in the following activities:

Please indicate below your recommendations for Faculty Development activities

   0—No opinion

   1—Continue

   2—Replace with suggestion below

Primary assignment (please check one): Faculty____ Dept. Head_____ Dean/Admin._____

Appendix C

East Texas State University

Newsletter Survey Form

Opinions about the new look for the Faculty Development Newsletter:

I wish to review the following book for LIONOTES:

I have an article/idea to contribute to the newsletter as follows:

________ Please include me on the list of faculty willing to collaborate.

________ Please send me a copy of the Kappan article when it arrives.

Name (please print)

Dept.

(Please return via campus mail to Jon Travis)

Appendix D

The Ohio State University

New Faculty Network (Winter 1995)

In Winter Quarter 1995, the Office of Faculty and TA Development coordinated four New Faculty Network (NFN) meetings. You attended some or all sessions. For our information and better planning in the future, we would greatly appreciate it if you can take a few minutes to complete the following questionnaire. Your input is very important to us.

1. What do you think of the topics we selected for the NFN meetings?

2. What did you like most about the sessions and handouts we have shared with you?

3. What did you like the least about the sessions and/or handouts?

4. What other faculty development programs would you like our office to facilitate in the future?

Thank you for your support and prompt response. Please return the questionnaire before March 24 to Marsha Jones, Faculty and TA Development, 20 Lord Hall, 124 W. 17th Ave., CAMPUS. Thanks.

Appendix E

West Virginia University

Fall 1995 Instructional Improvement Resources Survey

Name_______________________________ Dept/Program___________________________

Address_____________________________ Phone__________ Email __________

_____I am interested in participating in the Peer Visitation Program by opening my class to fellow faculty members.

Course Number and Title___________   Class Time______________

Room Number and Building________   Student Enrollment__________

Students Served:        ________Beginning Undergraduates

               ________Advanced Undergraduates

               ________Graduates

Please check all teaching methods that apply:

__problem-solving        __lecture

__cooperative group learning    __independent study

__field trips audiovisual      __multimedia distance learning

__computer-aided instruction    __individualized instruction

__role playing           __case studies

__discussion groups        __projects

__others (describe)

Please describe some of the teaching activities in your class. This information will help interested faculty in selecting classes to visit.

I am interested in subscribing to the Instructional Improvement Network (IIN) email discus- siongroup. yes no

____ I am interested in receiving help in the following areas pertaining to instructional improvement.

____ I am interested in providing help to other faculty in the following areas pertaining to instructional improvement.

____ I am interested in attending a seminar on Instructional Improvement regarding:

• Topic(s)

• Possible speakers from WVU or outside

What other initiatives should the Instructional Improvement Network pursue to promote excellence in teaching and learning at WVU?

PLEASE RETURN ASAP. RESPONSES RECEIVED BY SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 WILL ENSURE INCLUSION ON THE PEER VISITATION LIST, WHICH WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL FACULTY