Sixteen Ways to Kill a College Faculty Development Program

Author(s): James O. Hammons and Terry H. Smith Wallace

Source: Educational Technology , December, 1976, Vol. 16, No. 12 (December, 1976), pp.
16-20
Published by: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44418419

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Technology

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Sixteen Ways to Hopefully, the admonitions which follow will
be of help to individuals who are presently engaged
Kill a College in, or are considering involvement in, the design
and implementation of a faculty development
Faculty Development program. A recognition of these negative postulates
is imperative if persons involved in faculty develop-
Program ment are not to repeat the errors of the past,
painfully discover lessons already learned else-
where, and, as the old cliche goes, end up
James O. Hammons and "reinventing the wheel."
Terry H. Smith Wallace Postulate #1: Fail to provide an acceptable
rationale for why a faculty development program is
needed. In institution after institution, administra-
The last several years have seen an unprecedented tors inadvertently communicate the notion of
increase in the interest given to inservice faculty "staff development for staff development's sake"
development activities at all levels of higher educa- by failing to present an acceptable rationale to the
tion. On the two-year college level, there have been faculty who are to participate. Understandably,
at least two national surveys (American Associa- faculty with long years of formal education behind
tion of Junior Colleges, 1969; Chavez, 1973), one them not only do not perceive staff development
book (O'Banion, 1972), several dissertations (Col- as something of any value to them but may
man, 1968; Samlin, 1967), and a host of confer- respond to it as a subtle insult to their professional-
ences, including the 1973 Annual Assembly of the ism. Often justifiably, they view inservice training
American Association of Community and Junior as a wearisome responsibility to be endured be-
Colleges (Yarrington, 1974) which have addressed cause the administration "generated" the program,
the issue. Similarly, there has been a substantial and they attend because "it's the political thing to
growth in the literature on university and four-year do." And, all too often, staff development conjures
college faculty development. The increased con- up memories of lectures delivered by out-of-town
"experts" who make their presentations, lunch
cern and need for inservice education was under-
lined recently by at least two major studies:with
one the administration, then depart for the
nearest airport.
from the Group for Human Development in Higher
Education (1974) on Faculty Development in aYet, persuasive rationales for faculty develop-
Time of Retrenchment ; the other, J.G. Gaffs ment do exist. In the community college, for
Toward Faculty Development: Advances in instance, Fac- few faculty accepted their positions with
ulty, Instructional and Organizational Develop- any previous experience or understanding of the
ment (1975). uniqueness of the two-year institution. Further,
Unfortunately, most of the literature has the majority of the faculty now teaching in the
focused on supporting the need for faculty devel- community colleges received little or no specific
opment and little has addressed the critically training to prepare them for their roles, since at the
important question of how to meet these needs. time they were hired there were few university
The reasons for this are several, not the least of based programs established for this purpose and
which are a natural tendency on the part of many the small number in existence were of questionable
authors to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, value. The four-year college and the university face
an almost infinite number of variables to be a similar lack of trained personnel. It has been
considered, the relatively few institutions which that "no profession appears to prepare
suggested
have established exemplary programs, and its thefuture
fact members as poorly or devotes as little
that there has been very little definitive effort
research
to continuing inservice development as does
from which one might posit generalizations. With
higher education" (Sagen et al., 1972, p. 331). The
these considerations in mind, it is obvious that this
basic rationale for faculty development at senior
is not a definitive "how to" article on staff institutions lies in the serious and growing need for
development. Rather, it advances a number of instructional improvement- a need underlined by
negative postulates on how to kill a college faculty retrenchment, declining enrollments and increased
development program. public pressure for accountability. In an era of
unpredictable inflation, dwindling tax bases and
James O. Hammons is Professor of Higher Education, increased competition for scarce dollars, there is a
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Terry H. Smith pressing need for improved effectiveness and effi-
Wallace is Associate Professor, Harrisburg Area Community ciency, normally defined as "increased learning"
College, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. and/or "lower costs per student."

16 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/December, 1976

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Postulate #2: Fail to assign responsibility and balance between institutional and individual goals
authority for planning. Perhaps the best way to often stems from a failure to identify both
destroy a faculty development program is to fail to elements adequately. The chances are slight of
assign responsibility for it. Whether the assignment arriving at a balanced program without a clear
is made to a person or a committee does not seem formulation and statement of institutional goals
to be as important as the act of assigning responsi- and a careful survey of individual goals and staff
bility. A new approach to managing large corpora- development needs. However, if these two ele-
tions known as MBO (Management-by-Objectives) ments are clearly delineated, faculty and adminis-
has essentially developed around the simple princi- tration can "reason together" and arrive at a
ple of assigning responsibility for a task and common understanding.
requiring mutual agreement between supervisor Postulate #6: Fail to make participation
and subordinate regarding the end to be achieved. voluntary. While administrators may be tempted to
Adoption of a similar approach in faculty develop- require faculty participation in inservice activities,
ment is long overdue. The maxim "inservice in order to involve as many as possible, the fact is
training is the job of every administrator" usuallythat such involuntary participation may be
results in everybody's job becoming nobody'scounterproductive. Malcolm Knowles, a theorist in
responsibility. adult education at Boston University, has advanced
Postulate #3: Fail to involve faculty in two significant premises particularly relevant to
planning. The failure to involve faculty in planning understanding why faculty participation in staff
for their own development is a quick catalyst fordevelopment programs should be voluntary.
their resistance to or rejection of the resulting Knowles' first premise is that men and women
program and serves unwittingly to cast them into are in a process of becoming increasingly mature as
the role of critic. Research on adult motivation thinking, feeling, doing persons; and, as they
(Knowles, 1973) and experience in governing and mature, their self-concept gradually changes. They
managing have born out the concept of "participa- become more secure and self-directive and their
tion." As one community college writer has identify ob- problems are progressively resolved. How-
served, "only the instructor can identify the ever, if they are placed in situations (e.g., involun-
training needs he really wants to meet; only he can tary inservice programs) whrere they find their
implement the changes . . . resulting from training" self-directiveness inhibited or stifled, adults often
(Lefforge, 1971, p. 2). With the even greater become resistant and resentful (Knowles, 1973, p.
jealousy for faculty governance evidenced by four- 46).
year college and university staffs, their concerns Knowles' second premise is that adults learn
dare not be ignored. In short, faculty memberssomething are because they have a need to learn it, not
much more likely to have a commitment to, and simply because they ought to learn it. The need
feel a responsibility for, a program which they have arises out of the adult's particular stage of develop-
helped plan. ment as a spouse, parent, faculty member, etc. One
Postulate # 4 : Fail to provide sufficient flex- of the implications of this assumption is that
ibility. One of the errors often made by institu- learning experiences should be timed to coincide
tions attempting to establish faculty development with the adult learner's needs if inservice education
programs is that of developing a single program. It efforts are to be successful (Knowles, 1973, p. 47).
is unrealistic to assume that all faculty will need or Briefly, for faculty members to change or to
desire the same experiences, since all are obviously learn, they must perceive a need. If forced to
not at the same stage of development. Thus, a key become involved in a faculty development activity
consideration in planning should be to provide which is not perceived to be fulfilling a personal
sufficient options in the program to meet differing need, they are likely to become recalcitrant. Since
staff needs. little, if any, learning will result under these
Postulate #5: Fail to balance institutional circumstances, it seems wise that participation in
priorities and individual needs. Although not faculty development activities should be on a
always clearly stated, each institution has certain voluntary basis.
goals and objectives which must be achieved if itsPostulate #7: Fail to have administrative staff
purposes are to be fulfilled. The means by which participate in staff development activities. Admin-
this is done is primarily through the efforts of the istrators, particularly deans and division/depart-
faculty. At the same time, individual faculty ment chairpersons, are often too "busy" to attend
members are often aware of personal deficiencies staff development activities- even those programs
and are willing to participate in activities related designed
to partially for them. In other instances,
correcting these. they constantly "pop in and out" giving the
Failure to find a happy medium or productive
impression that they are able to comprehend

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/December, 1976 17

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I /"-a^ ^ ' J

whatever is going on in half the time of their procedures to transferability of courses to another
faculty or that whatever is going on is only worth college, from graduation requirements to why the
half their time. They thereby set bad models which college does not make certain courses of study
obviously have a poor effect on the staff develop- available, by excluding part-time faculty from staff
ment program. development activities, a college may well be
Administrators can do much to set the pace opting for large doses of misinformation, miserable
by participating fully. If staff development activi- instruction and student frustration and drop-out.
ties are scheduled weeks- even months- in advance Postulate #9: Fall to reward participation.
Assuming that the errors discussed thus far have
in order for faculty to budget their time and make
necessary adjustments in order to attend, the been avoided, a faculty development program can
faculty may rightfully ask why their leaders cannot still be doomed to failure unless the institution has
do the same. provided reward incentives for participating faculty
Postulate #8: Fail to include part-time members. The demands on a faculty member's
faculty. A quick examination of the most recent time quite often exceed the amount of time
issue of the Community and junior College Direc- available to meet those demands. Thus, choices
tory indicates that part-time faculty comprise must be made. If, for instance, acquisition of six
approximately one-fourth to one-half of the total graduate credits in the History of Northern
number of faculty in most institutions and as many European Countries at a nearby state college will
as three-fourths in some colleges. Similarly, many result in an increase in salary for a community
senior colleges employ large numbers of adjunct college history teacher, while investment of an
faculty. Since part-time faculty most often teach in equivalent amount of time in the college's staff
the evening, and more than one-half of the total development program yields nothing but a pat on
number of students at many colleges are evening the back, the choice is easy. Four-year college and
students, the college experience for the majority of university personnel have also addressed this point.
those students may be shaped and determined by As one writer (Tschirgi, 1973, p. 218) stresses: "If
their contacts with adjunct faculty. the administration will make it plain that con-
However, few, if any, of these adjunct staff tinued evidence of professional improvement is a
members have received orientation to the college requisite for promotion and pay increases and that
goals, policies or procedures. Further, few adjunct active participation in in-house training opportu-
faculty in the community college have any back- nities will be strongly considered in such evalua-
ground in pedagogy, and practically none possess tion, attendance will improve."
any understanding of the unique role of the Reward for participation need not be limited
community college in the structure of higher to award of institutional credit. Not quite so visible
education or the unique needs and characteristics but of equal attractiveness to some faculty are
of the studënt population served by the two-year other amenities such as released time, opportu-
campus. Likewise, part-time faculty members at nities to visit other colleges, funds to attend
four-year institutions lack information. Since these conferences and workshops, and professional or
are the persons to whom large numbers of students public recognition. Each of these actions communi-
at both two- and four-year colleges turn to for cates to the faculty that the institution places a
excellent instruction in addition to answers to a
value on efforts directed toward self-improvement.
multitude of questions ranging from preregistrationIn some institutions it may be more appropri-.

18 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/December, 1976

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ate if participants are paid for attending. This was should actually experience some of the classroom
found to be especially true for part-time faculty exercises prescribed by the consultant.
enrolled in a semi-weekly inservice program held Postulate #12: Fail to mix internai and
on Saturday mornings. The $15 paid them per externai resources. Programs which have attempted
session, while not much, helped to defray expenses to utilize only outside consultants as resource
of making the trip to campus. persons have usually failed, as have those based
Postulate #10: Fail to exercise common sense
exclusively on internal talent. As has been found in
in scheduling. The telephone call on Monday business and industry, the ideal arrangement is to
asking a consultant if he will be able to conduct an combine the two, thus deriving the benefits of
all-day session for a faculty the following Saturday, both while avoiding some of the disadvantages of
or the memorandum on Tuesday informing faculty each.
of an inservice program on Thursday- these kinds
of last minute scheduling are indicative of the lack Outside consultants have the advantage of
of planning which makes many a program ineffec- being relatively uninfluenced by. local biases; they
tive. are more likely to be cosmopolitan than parochial
For faculty to participate in group oriented in their viewpoints; they represent a virtually
faculty development activities, careful planning is unlimited pool of talent, and they often are able to
required which takes into consideration the advan- influence change where all else has failed. Yet,
tages, disadvantages, costs and benefits of all good outside consultants are usually expensive, are
possible scheduling times. Some of the more likely often unavailable, and, due to their unfamiliarity
possibilities include Saturday mornings, regular with a local situation, can create and aggravate
school hours (with participating faculty released problems. There may also be the problem of
from class obligations), repeated sessions during dealing with an unknown quantity- i.e., the exter-
nal consultant- in a situation in which one bad
regular school hours (to make programs as available
as possible to those who want to attend) and/or choice can set faculty development back several
several different days in the college calendar. years.

Closely related to scheduling miscues is the On the other hand, the internal resource
failure to provide continuity to the program. Roger
person faces the proverbial difficulties of being a
Garrison, in a 1967 survey of faculty attitudes "prophet in one's own country"; and the risks of
conducted for the American Association of Com- personal trauma to the local staff member, if his
munity and Junior Colleges, found that facultyprogram is not well received, are considerable.
preferred inservice training on a continuing basis.
However, against these potential problems must be
Practitioners at senior institutions voice similar weighed the advantages of familiarity with the
recommendations in the report by the Grouplocal forsituation, and the catalytic effect toward
Human Development in Higher Education, Faculty further personal growth and development of the
Development in a Time of Retrenchment. Yet, the
faculty-consultant involved.
prevailing practice of most institutions continues
to exemplify the belief that inservice means a Postulate #13: Fail to publicize the program
adequately. Too often a consultant is engaged asa
one-day workshop traditionally held at the begin-
speaker in a faculty development program several
ning of the academic year.
Postulate #11: Fail to consider the instruc- months in advance while publicity to the faculty
regarding the program is not released until the last
tional techniques to be used in the program. Too
week before the consultant's arrival. Thus, faculty
often, once scheduling difficulties are overcome
preparation for, and participation in, the program
and resource persons identified, the tendency is to
suffer a critical blow. The college should answer as
assume that the planning function has ended.
early as possible four vital publicity questions and
Making suggestions about instructional techniques
then see that publicity deadlines are religiously
to be used by a resource person (either an outside
kept: Who will be responsible for publicity? What
consultant or a staff member) is not customarily
publicity should be made? When should it be
done and may, in fact, be resented by some. done? To whom should it be sent?
However, college personnel who are responsible for
the program and are putting up the dollars should Postulate #14: Fail to evaluate the results.
feel free to discuss the methodology of the Unfortunately, the adage, "if it is worth doing, it is
presentation. For example, in a program dealing worth evaluating," does not seem to apply to
with techniques of individualizing instruction, pro- inservice programs. Consequently, errors of the
gram consultants should be expected to "practicepast continue to be repeated, and the impressions
what they preach," or in a session on improvingof one or two persons conveyed by word-of-mouth
communication within the classroom, participants determine the reputation of a program.

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY/December, 1976 19

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 If, in fact, an institution is serious in its desire Conclusion
to plan and implement a faculty development The field of faculty development is littered
program, it can scarcely afford not to develop a with unfulfilled good intentions and weak, ineffec-
valid evaluation plan. In an era of tight budgets, tive, unproductive programs, in large part due to
taxpayer revolts, and public demand for account- the postulates discussed above. While the list is not
ability of monies expended, a failure to evaluate inclusive or exhaustive, it is an important one in
programs may not only be educationally unsound, light of the growing need and significance of
but politically unwise. Only valid evaluation data effective inservice education in helping colleges and
can answer crucial questions like the following: (1) universities fulfill their missions in the 1970s and
Were objectives met? (2) What parts of the 1980s. If the negative postulates discussed here are
program should be continued? What parts deleted? acknowledged and avoided, the chances for pro-
(3) Which resource persons were (were not) effec- ductive staff development are substantially in-
tive? In the absence of such data, inefficient, creased; if not, the foundations of failure may well
unproductive, and irrelevant programs will be be laid. □
continued.
References
Postulate #15: Fail to provide adequate fund-
ing. It is an odd paradox that colleges which Chavez, J. Summary of Results: Staff Development Survey.
readily budget funds for the maintenance and Washington, D.C.: American Association of Commu-
repair of things (buildings, computers, typewriters) nity and Junior Colleges, 1973.
are unwilling to budget a similar amount for theColman, C. Organization and Administration of an inservice
maintenance of people. A conservative percentage Program for Public Junior Colleges. Doctoral Disserta-
estimate of the colleges that regularly budget for a tion, University of Nebraska, 1968. Ann Arbor,
planned program of staff development is less than Michigan: University Microfilms (Order No. 69-9619).
one percent. Faculty Development in a Time of Retrenchment. New
Rochelle, New York: The Group for Human Develop-
There is little question that without adequate ment in Higher Education, 1974.
funding, the chances for establishing a viable staff Gaff, J.G. Toward Faculty Development: Advances in
development program are severely diminished. Faculty, Instructional and Organizational Develop-
Answering the question of how much support is ment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
adequate depends on the program's objectives. The Garrison, R. Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems.
goals of one program (a one-day session utilizing Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior
in-house resources) may be met at relatively low Colleges, 1967.
inservice Training for Two-Year College Faculty and Staff :
cost, whereas another (e.g., released time for
A Survey of Junior and Community College Adminis-
instructional innovation) may require substantial trators. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
funding. Whatever the case, false economies, such Junior Colleges, 1969.
as utilizing an unknown, untried resource person in Knowles, M. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.
order to save an extra $75 per day in consultant Houston: Unit Publishing Company, 1973.
fees, are unwise, when somewhat higher expendi- Lefforge, O.S. Inservice Training as an Instrument for
tures may guarantee success. Unfortunately, the Change. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida
solution to poor performance by a "bargain" Institute of Higher Education, 1971.
consultant is not limited to conducting a new O' Ban ion, T. Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Development
session with another resource person. in the Community-Junior College. Tucson, Arizona:
University of Arizona Press, 1972.
Postulate #16: Fail to provide criticai non- Sagen, H.B. et al. Improving Faculty Inservice Programs:
monetary support for the program. Monetary Implications of the NCA Seminars for Inexperienced
support of faculty development is important, but, College Teachers. North Central Association Quar-
by itself, it is not sufficient to insure success. terly, 1972, 46, 331-334.
Visible support of another type is critically Samlin, J.R. Inservice Education in American Public Junior
needed: a formal board policy advocating faculty Colleges. Doctoral Dissertation, Illinois State Univer-
development, the president or dean taking time out sity, 1967. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Micro-
films (Order No. 68-403).
to participate personally in staff development
activities, and/or space in the president's annual Tschirgi, H. Inhouse Training for Business Faculty. Improv-
ing College and University Teaching, Summer 1973,
report summarizing the college's faculty develop- 27, 215-219.
ment program and its results. These and similar Yarrington, R. (Ed.) Educational Opportunity for All: New
kinds of support are equally critical to the success Staff for New Students. Report of the 1973 Assembly
of faculty inservice training. To provide unlimited of the American Association of Community and
support without it will most likely be an ineffec- Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Associa-
tive use, if not a downright waste, of money. tion of Community and Junior Colleges, 1974.

20 EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOG Y/December, 1976

This content downloaded from

182.72.153.110 on Tue, 16 Nov 2021 11:43:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms