evaluation, impact, faculty development, literature review
10.3280/exioa2-2020oa10801
This article provides a chronological review of models and studies on the evaluation of faculty development programs in the United States. The article is organized by decades, from the pre-1970s to 2020. The scope of the review, by design, is limited to a sampling of influential work, both classic and recent literature. An emergent theme from the review is that we now have robust models, criteria, and examples of how to better assess the quality, outcomes, and impact of faculty development programs. At the same time, what often is lacking are staff, time, skills, or resources to do so. This gap serves to highlight important questions for future research and practice.
application/pdf
2499-507X
10801
2
it
Mary Deane Sorcinelli
Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching - Open Access
literature review
The evaluation of faculty development programs in the United States. A fifty-year retrospective (1970s-2020)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa
5
Saggi e ricerche
2020-11-30
2020-11-30
2020-12-01
2022-04-08
EXIOA
Mary Deane Sorcinelli
2020/11/30
10.3280/exioa2-2020oa10801
University of Massachusetts
2499-507X
2
literature review
it
Wright, M.C. (2011). Measuring a Teaching Center’s Effectiveness. In C. Cook & M. Kaplan (Eds), Advancing the Culture of Teaching on Campus: How a Teaching Center Can Make a Difference. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
The evaluation of faculty development programs in the United States. A fifty-year retrospective (1970s-2020)
https://journals.francoangeli.it/index.php/exioa/article/download/10801/1320
5
  Saggi e ricerche

  The evaluation of faculty development programs in
  the United States. A fifty-year retrospective (1970s-
  2020)
  Mary Deane Sorcinelli*


  Abstract
  This article provides a chronological review of models and studies on the
  evaluation of faculty development programs in the United States. The article is
  organized by decades, from the pre-1970s to 2020. The scope of the review, by
  design, is limited to a sampling of influential work, both classic and recent
  literature. An emergent theme from the review is that we now have robust
  models, criteria, and examples of how to better assess the quality, outcomes,
  and impact of faculty development programs. At the same time, what often is
  lacking are staff, time, skills, or resources to do so. This gap serves to highlight
  important questions for future research and practice.

  Key Words: evaluation, impact, faculty development, literature review.


  Introduction

     Calls for more accountability for colleges and universities are, of course,
  nothing new. What is different over the last decade is the laser focus on
  measuring student learning outcomes and success. Student development and
  learning, however, do not occur in isolation. Faculty members play a critical
  role in student success through the quality of their teaching. Students are more
  engaged, learn more, persist in their studies, and graduate in stronger numbers
  when instructors teach well (Struthers, MacCormack, & Taylor, 2018).
  Investing in faculty professional learning, then, is essential; faculty members
  deserve the on-going support needed to provide every student with a quality
  education.



  *
    Professor Emeritus & Senior Fellow, Center for Teaching & Learning, University of
  Massachusetts Amherst. Co-Principal Investigator, Undergraduate STEM Education
  Initiative, Association of American Universities (AAU).

  Excellence and Innovation in Learning and Teaching (ISSNe 2499-507X), 2020, 2

  Doi:10.3280/exioa2-2020oa10801




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
      Faculty development, referred to by several other terms, including
  educational development, staff development, and professional learning,
  emerged in the United States during the 1970s. It was a response to calls for
  improvements in faculty members’ performance, particularly in their role as
  instructors. As the field matured, many institutions sought to cultivate teaching
  development by establishing a committee, appointing a faculty member or
  administrator, or creating a formal, centralized unit charged with the
  administration of faculty development programs (Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy &
  Beach, 2006).
      The field has always been guided by a core principle that sees professional
  learning at the heart of faculty, student, and institutional growth. At the same
  time, the goals, structures, services, and evaluation of faculty development
  programs have evolved over time. The intent of this literature review is to
  provide a chronological examination of the earliest models and studies on the
  evaluation of faculty development programs, identifying a clear path of the
  advance in research and practice. As such, it is organized over some six
  decades, from the pre-1970s to 2020. The scope of the review, by design, is
  limited to important and influential work, sampling both classic and recent
  literature in the field, and providing some considerations for the conduct of
  future research.
      Researchers have captured the evolution of the field of faculty development
  in six ages: Age of the Scholar, Age of the Teacher, Age of the Developer, Age
  of the Learner, Age of the Network, and the Age of Evidence (Beach, Sorcinelli,
  Austin, & Rivard, 2016; Sorcinelli et al., 2006). They note that all six ages
  primarily describe the progression of faculty development in the U.S.; however,
  faculty development programs are burgeoning worldwide, and it will be
  essential to frame future ages with recognition of this global context. In this
  review, I examine the literature on faculty development program evaluation in
  each of these six sequential decades yet acknowledge the interdependence
  among the decades. All six “Ages” underpin and inform each other.


  1. The Age of the Scholar: Pre-1970s

      Prior to the 1970’s, the need to evaluate faculty development programs was
  barely noted. This was, in part, because during the 1950s and 1960s, faculty
  development efforts were directed almost entirely toward improving and
  advancing scholarly and disciplinary competence. Early appraisals of the
  effectiveness of faculty development focused almost exclusively on traditional
  measures of enhanced scholarly productivity: a completed degree, an increase
  in scholarly presentations, books, or articles, or the winning of external grants

                                                6




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  or fellowships. Very few colleges and universities had anything that resembled
  a formal program and there were virtually no measures of outcomes; benefits
  such as increased student learning and more effective teaching were assumed
  rather than measured (Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Sorcinelli et al., 2006).


  2. The Age of the Teacher: 1970s

     From the beginning of formalized faculty development, the literature
  acknowledged the need for program evaluation. Early scholars in the field
  (Bergquist & Phillips, 1975; Gaff, 1975; Hoyt & Howard, 1978; Toombs, 1975)
  created the initial frameworks, models, and components of effective faculty
  development programs, identifying several key dimensions: organizational,
  instructional, curricular, and personal or faculty development. They also
  recognized the inherent difficulty in producing convincing evidence of the
  impact of faculty development activities. Bergquist and Phillips (1975)
  suggested that programs would need to focus on collecting data that could
  measure individual faculty growth and/or student learning outcomes. Hoyt and
  Howard (1978) noted that the literature pertaining to faculty development
  evaluation was “extremely sparse” and “uncommonly simplistic” (Hoyt &
  Howard, 1978, p. 27). In response, the authors offered a three-dimensional
  model for collecting data on faculty development programs that advocated
  measurement of participant satisfaction, behavioral change, and evidence of
  improvement in teaching effectiveness (p. 26).
     The first large-scale study of faculty development, and the first to query about
  program evaluation, was conducted by Centra in 1976, in a survey to which 756
  US colleges and universities responded. His goals were to identify faculty
  development activities, evaluate their effectiveness, determine their funding
  sources, and characterize their organizational structures. Responses to Centra’s
  question about the extent of faculty development program evaluation indicated
  that nearly half (48%) of respondents reported that faculty development programs
  were not assessed, 33% said some fraction of programs were assessed, and only
  14% indicated that their programs were evaluated. Suggested reasons for not
  documenting faculty development outcomes included limitations in staff,
  funding, and knowledge of assessment practices (Centra, 1976).


  3. The Age of the Developer: 1980s

      By the early 1980s, as the field of faculty development began to flourish,


                                                7




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  more researchers began to direct their attention away from creating faculty
  development models to considering program evaluation methodologies
  (Blackburn, 1980; Eble & McKeachie, 1985; Ferren & Mussell, 1987; Menges
  & Svinicki, 1989). A measurement baseline for many researchers was the
  number or percentage of clientele reached. They also encouraged program
  evaluations that used structured surveys of participant gains in satisfaction,
  knowledge, and skills, ideally in concert with other data sources such as
  qualitative interviews and case study analysis of documents (e.g., program
  materials, participation statistics, individual program evaluations). A fourth
  evaluation method, the quasi-experimental model, was the least suggested,
  probably reflecting the challenge of identifying comparison groups that were as
  similar as possible to the treatment groups in terms of baseline (pre-
  intervention) characteristics.
      The decade opened with two studies of faculty development programs – one
  a mailed questionnaire to faculty members and program administrators at
  twenty-five institutions (Blackburn, Pellino, Boberg, & O’Connell, 1980) and
  one an evaluation team’s site visits and interviews at twenty-five liberal arts
  institutions (Nelsen & Siegel, 1980). Results of both evaluations suggested that
  the most frequent and successful activities, as viewed by participants, involved
  individual professional development options such as study leaves, sabbaticals,
  and support for attendance at professional meetings. Projects that focused on
  instructional development efforts were greeted with less enthusiasm unless they
  provided specific, usable skills (e.g., grading practices). While both studies
  provided evidence of effective faculty development activities and program
  leadership, the proof rested primarily on respondents’ self-reports of
  satisfaction.
      Eble and McKeachie (1985) conducted arguably the most robust study in
  the Age of the Developer. They analyzed a wide variety of faculty development
  programs in some 24 different institutions – public and private, from small
  liberal arts colleges to research universities. They employed three primary
  sources of evidence: evaluations by the institutions, site visits to campuses, and
  questionnaires to faculty. They described evaluations conducted by the
  institutions to be largely unhelpful, with few exceptions. Campus evaluations
  relied primarily on the judgement of an outside consultant or the immediate
  reactions of participants. In some cases, evaluation plans simply were not being
  fully implemented. The authors concluded that those directing the programs
  either lacked assessment expertise or saw little value in evaluation. At the same
  time, the authors’ own study was impressive. It used multiple sources of
  information and different procedures for collecting data, ultimately concluding
  that “evaluation of faculty development programs is difficult” (Eble &
  McKeachie, 1985, p.177) but that “faculty development programs can be

                                                8




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  evaluated and can make a difference at the individual faculty and institutional
  levels” (p. 205).
     The steady rise in faculty development programs prompted Erickson (1986)
  to conduct a survey of faculty development practices, adapted from Centra’s
  (1976) survey a decade earlier. Erickson received responses from some 800
  faculty development coordinators, directors, committee chairs, or
  administrators. He found that “50% or more of four-year colleges and
  universities offer some formal faculty development, instructional development,
  or teaching improvement services” (Erickson, 1986, p. 196), up from about
  40% a decade earlier. Like preceding studies, Erickson’s found that traditional
  practices like grants, leaves, and exchanges were still the most frequently
  offered services but that there was growing interest in curricular change and
  teaching development programs. Unlike Centra’s (1976) or Eble and
  McKeachie’s (1985) studies, Erickson’s did not ask for estimates of the extent
  of participation or the extent to which faculty development programs assessed
  their effectivenes.
     It is worth noting that during this decade, researchers in medical education
  used multiple assessment practices to measure the impact of specific faculty
  development programs. Sheets and Henry (1984; 1988), for example, evaluated
  faculty development programs designed to improve the teaching skills of
  physicians. The authors developed three measures for assessing program results
  over time: cognitive outcomes by a pretest and posttest, behavioral outcomes
  by ratings of videotaped teaching simulations, and affective outcomes by
  written and verbal responses to program content. Results indicated that the
  participants learned new content and applied knowledge and skills acquired
  during the program. Participants, their supervisors, and program directors
  reported positive impact on their residency programs or departments,
  corroborating Eble & McKeachie’s finding that faculty development could
  benefit institutional culture.


  4. The Age of the Learner: 1990s

     During the Age of the Learner, there were no large-scale studies of the field
  of faculty development to directly follow up on the research of Centra (1976)
  and Erickson (1986). There was new interest, however, in faculty professional
  development as key to not only quality teaching but also student learning. Even
  so, measuring pedagogical knowledge, skills and attitudes, curricular change,
  or student learning remained difficult. For example, Jennings, Barlar and
  Bartling (1991) reported that half of the faculty development programs in their


                                                9




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  national survey were regularly evaluated, but the thoroughness with which
  those programs evaluated their services remained a question.
     Two notable studies sought to answer this question. Rubino (1994) and
  Chism and Szabo (1997) each surveyed a random sample of some 200
  institutions. Rubino’s findings indicated that evaluation of faculty development
  practices was most often based on participant satisfaction and evaluation was
  usually done at the end of the faculty development activity or program.
  Similarly, Chism and Szabo concluded that while a substantial amount of
  evaluation activity occurred across faculty development programs, most
  measured satisfaction by users (most often with questionnaires) rather than the
  impact on teaching or the learning of students. Like so many earlier studies,
  respondents reported challenges to robust evaluation such as lack of time,
  expertise, methodological issues, and resource gaps.
     Again, medical educators led the use of multiple evaluation methods in
  studying faculty development program outcomes. Elliot, Skeff, and Stratos
  (1999) conducted a longitudinal study of a program designed to firmly establish
  new teaching skills. They assessed program outcomes using attendance, self-
  reported teaching behaviors, perceived program usefulness, educational
  administrative responsibilities, and qualitative analysis of audiotapes and
  session notes. Nasmith, Saroyan, Steinert, Daigle, and Franco (1997) studied
  the long-term impact of faculty development workshops using three distinct
  instruments – an observation grid, scenarios, and a structured questionnaire.
  Both studies offered creative strategies for measuring a specific faculty
  development approach (i.e., workshops) rather than a comprehensive
  evaluation of a teaching and learning center.


  5. The Age of the Network: 2000s

     The first decade of the twenty-first century only accelerated changes in
  higher education that affected faculty and their work and, thus, the field of
  faculty development. The number of formal, centralized faculty development
  centers continued to rise; however, their capacity to measure the impact of their
  programs through an intentional, informative assessment lens was still
  emergent. Recognizing this continuing need, Plank, Kalish, Rohdieck, and
  Harper (2004) argued that what were now increasingly called “centers for
  teaching and learning (CTLs) needed practical strategies for integrating
  assessment into their daily work to help generate information that accurately
  measured their impact. They recommended CTLs create an integrated data
  system to measure, track, and report work for both summative and formative
  purposes.

                                               10




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
     Such data collection and evaluation efforts, however, remained a challenge
  for many institutions. For example, Murray (2002) reviewed faculty
  development literature in community colleges, turning up few national or
  regional studies and finding some serious methodological questions in many of
  the single-institution studies. He concluded that few programs evaluated their
  work. Frantz, Beebe, Horvath, Canales, and Swee (2005) conducted two
  electronic surveys on the roles of teaching and learning centers, surveying
  previous presidents and opinion leaders in higher education and directors of
  CTLs. Both studies reported that CTLs found it challenging to measure the
  effectiveness of their programs, be it due to lack of time, staff, money, or
  motivation.
     In the largest-scale study of the decade, Sorcinelli et al. (2006) surveyed
  nearly 500 faculty developers in teaching and learning centers at all institutional
  types, forming the basis of a book, Creating the Future of Faculty Development.
  The authors explored the evolution of the field of faculty development, goals
  guiding faculty development practice, faculty development structures, staffing,
  services, and future priorities for the field. Faculty developers identified
  assessment of student learning and teaching as top challenges facing faculty
  and institutions – and key priorities for faculty development in the future. In
  open ended comments, developers raised essential questions about collecting
  data on Center outcomes and impact; however, the study did not specifically
  ask respondents about their Center’s program evaluation practices.


  6. The Age of Evidence: 2010s

     Given the increasing interest among faculty developers and their institutions
  in assessing the outcomes of faculty development, and the gap in their 2006
  study regarding faculty development evaluation practices, Beach, Sorcinelli,
  Austin and Rivard (2016) decided to examine more deeply to what extent and
  in what ways faculty developers were assessing the impact of their programs
  on teaching, student learning, and other key outcomes. In fact, assessment and
  accountability emerged as predominant and pervasive themes throughout the
  study, resulting in Faculty Development in the Age of Evidence (Beach et al.,
  2016).
     In preparation for their study, the authors reviewed databases, journals, and
  individual works published after their original study (2006) to see how program
  evaluation was reflected in the work of faculty development. They found a
  sharpening focus on faculty development program evaluation. For example,
  Hines (2009; 2011) conducted two studies investigating faculty development
  program evaluation practices. The 2009 study of 20 teaching and learning

                                               11




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  centers with part-time staff and limited funding found that program assessment
  was predominately focused on superficial measures. In contrast, the 2011 study
  investigated evaluation practices at thirty‐three established, centralized,
  university funded CTLs. This study revealed that established centralized CTLs
  had significantly stronger practices for evaluating their services.
     Stes, Min-Leliveld, Gijbels, and Van Petegem (2010) conducted an
  extensive review of research on the impact of instructional development in
  higher education, concluding that more attention should be given to studies
  measuring actual changes in teaching performance, and capturing the effects at
  an institutional or student level. Kucsera and Svinicki (2010) reviewed nine
  leading faculty development publications and found only a limited number of
  studies assessing teaching development programs met best practice standards.
  Chism, Holley and Harris (2012) reviewed 138 studies on the impact of
  educational development practices including research on workshops, formal
  courses, communities of practice, consultation, mentoring, and awards and
  grants programs. They concluded that “although the studies varied in quality,
  the sheer volume of results offered guidance for development practice” (Chism,
  Holley, & Harris, 2012, p. 145).
     Beach et al. (2016) surveyed faculty developers on a range of topics; most
  significantly eliciting information on ways faculty developers assessed the
  impact of their programs. Findings indicated that as the complexity of the
  evaluation approach increased (e.g., measuring the change in teaching practice
  or student learning), the percentage of use declined. For example, overall,
  centers collected data by tracking participation numbers and participant self-
  report satisfaction at a greater extent; collected data on an increase in the
  knowledge or skills of participants or a change in the practice at a moderate
  extent; and, collected data on student learning or changes in the institution’s
  culture of teaching at only a slight extent. A membership survey of faculty
  developers corroborated this finding, reporting that the impact of teaching
  center services were primarily measured by self-reports of satisfaction or
  learning after use of the unit’s services (The 2016 POD Network Membership
  Survey, 2016).
     On a decidedly affirmative note, during the Age of Evidence researchers,
  practitioners in the field, and professional associations in faculty development
  and higher education have created new resources and guides for measuring a
  faculty development program or a teaching and learning center’s effectiveness.
  There are several comprehensive models and innovative assessment approaches
  for designing, implementing, and using a faculty development evaluation
  system to measure and document a distinct program or a teaching center’s
  holistic effectiveness (Fink, 2013; Hines, 2017; Kalish & Plank, 2010;
  MacCormack, Snow, Gyurko, & Sekel, 2018; POD Network in Higher

                                               12




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  Education, 2018; Wright, 2011; Wright, Horii, Felten, Sorcinelli, & Kaplan,
  2018). Developed by faculty developers and educators, the program evaluation
  models and approaches are relatively straightforward for use by teaching center
  staff and for communication with stakeholders on campus or beyond.
      There also are new frameworks for goal setting, strategic planning or
  benchmarking a faculty development program. The American Council on
  Education (ACE) and The POD Network collaborated on a publication on
  assessing the impact of faculty development (Haras, Taylor, Sorcinelli & von
  Hoene, 2017) as well as on a complementary research and evidence-based tool,
  A Center for Teaching and Learning Matrix (Collins Brown et al., 2018). The
  matrix offers a set of evaluation criteria, quality definitions for those criteria at
  three levels of a teaching center’s development, and a scoring strategy. The
  Learning Compact (Bass, Eynon & Gambino, 2019) builds on this work,
  offering a conceptual framework and resource for professional learning and
  educational change that includes core values, core principles, questions for self-
  assessment and planning, and guidelines for implementation and evaluation.
      Until the Age of Evidence there also was little rigorous research on whether
  instruction and/or faculty development programs have an impact on students’
  learning. Now scholars have examined the scholarship of evidence-based
  teaching practices and student outcomes and drawn a linkage between them
  (Janknowski, 2017). Results of a multi-year, multi-method study undertaken to
  assess how students’ learning is affected by faculty members’ efforts to become
  better teachers concluded that faculty participation in professional development
  activities, done well, positively affects classroom pedagogy, student learning,
  and the overall culture of teaching and learning in a college or university
  (Condon, Iverson, Manduca, Rutz, & Willett, 2016). Most recently, an
  independent assessment of ten rigorous impact studies reinforced the link
  between faculty development, teaching improvement, and student learning
  (Allen, McPherson, Nilson & Sorcinelli, 2019).


  7. Conclusion

      The overall message of this literature review is a positive one. As Eble and
  McKeachie (1985) posited, the evaluation of faculty development programs is
  challenging, but they can be evaluated. Over the decades, studies have built an
  evidence base about core goals and guiding principles of CTLs, effective
  structures, services that participants find to be of most value, and faculty
  development approaches that “work.” Developing this evidence base has been
  like building a mosaic: each individual piece does not make the picture, but bit
  by bit a picture becomes clearer and clearer. While no one measure or study

                                               13




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  may be convincing, the convergence of evidence from many sources increases
  confidence that faculty development is indeed impactful. Most exciting is the
  growing body of evidence that demonstrates the influence of faculty
  professional learning on pedagogical improvement, student learning and
  success, and institutional culture change.
      One reoccurring theme throughout the literature is that faculty developers
  are intensely interested in evaluating their programs and in finding ways to
  enhance their assessment of outcomes and impact. Regardless of size and
  staffing, nearly all centers are actively engaged in tracking participation in and
  satisfaction with their programs, and some are assessing impact on instructional
  practice, student learning, and culture change (Beach et al., 2016). Faculty
  developers now have the evaluation models, criteria, and examples of how to
  better assess the quality, outcomes, and impact of their faculty development
  programs. What they often do not have is the staff, time, skills, or resources to
  do so.
      One solution is to understand that resource allocation for many centers
  involves weighing a difficult balance between doing and evaluating their work.
  Scholars suggest that documenting the number of program participants and
  measuring their satisfaction are valuable metrics of engagement and influence
  of services. They also suggest that CTLs reserve their resources by studying a
  select project or signature initiative and by relying on the literature for what we
  already know “works (Chism & Szabo, 1997; Wright, et al., 2018).
      Another option is to take this opportunity to add new pieces to the mosaic
  of program evaluation research and practice. How might the field deepen the
  program evaluation expertise of faculty developers? Might there be more
  fruitful collaborations with campus units such as an office of assessment or
  institutional research? Might centers draw on the expertise of faculty or
  graduate students in an educational measurement degree program? How might
  teaching centers cultivate high expectations, support, and resources for program
  assessment from their institutions? Might there be fruitful linkages with
  external stakeholders such as external scholars or higher education professional
  associations with expertise in quality enhancement and improvement? A further
  exploration of creative ways to advance faculty development program
  evaluation practice would promise benefits for the field and all of higher
  education.


  References

  Allen, D., McPherson, M.S., Nilson, L.B., & Sorcinelli, M.D. (2019). ACUE student,
     faculty, and institutional impact research: Independent review process and findings.


                                               14




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
      Association of College and University Educators. Retrieved from
      https://acue.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ACUE-Research-Review-Findings-
      2019.pdf.
  Bass, R., Eyon, B., & Gambino, L.M. (2019). The new learning compact: A framework
      for professional learning and educational change (Every Learner Everywhere).
      Retrieved from https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/resources/the-new-
      learning-compact/.
  Beach, A., Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A., & Rivard, J. (2016). Faculty development in
      the age of evidence: Current practices, future imperatives. Sterling, VA: Stylus
      Publishing.
  Bergquist, W.H., & Phillips, S.R. (1975). Components of an effective faculty
      development program. Journal of Higher Education, 46(2), 177-215.
  Blackburn, R.T. (1980). Project for faculty development program evaluation: Final
      report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 208 767. Ann Arbor, MI:
      Center for the Study of Higher Education: Michigan University.
  Blackburn, R.T., Pellino, G., Boberg, A., & O’Connell, C. (1980). Are institutional
      improvement programs off-target? In Improving Teaching and Institutional
      Quality. Current Issues in Higher Education, No. 1. Washington, D.C.: American
      Association for Higher Education.
  Centra, J. A. (1976). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities.
      Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  Chism, N.V.N. & Szabo, B. (1997). How Faculty Development Programs Evaluate
      Their Services. Journal of Staff, Program & Organization Development, 15(2), 55-
      62.
  Chism, Holley, M., & Harris, C.J. (2012). Researching the impact of educational
      development: Basis for informed practice. In J.E. Garcia & L. Cruz (Eds.), To
      Improve the Academy, 31, 129-145.
  Collins Brown, E., Haras, C., Hurney, C., Iuzzini, J., Magruder, E., Sorcinelli, M.D.,
      Taylor, S.C., & Wright, M. (2018). A Center for Teaching and Learning Matrix.
      POD Network and American Council on Education. Retrieved from
      https://podnetwork.org/resources/center-for-teaching-and-learning-matrix/.
  Condon, W., Iverson, E., Manduca, C., Rutz, C., & Willett, G. (2016). Faculty
      development and student learning: Assessing the connections. Bloomington, IN:
      Indiana University Press.
  Eble, K. E., & McKeachie, W. J. (1985). Improving undergraduate education through
      faculty development: An analysis of effective programs and practices. San
      Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  Elliot, D.L., Skeff, K.M. & Stratos, G.A. (1999). How do you get to the improvement
      of teaching? A longitudinal faculty development program for medical educators.
      Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 11(1), 52-57.
  Erickson, G. (1986). A survey of faculty development practices. In M. Svinicki, J.
      Kurfiss, & J. Stone (Eds.), To Improve the Academy, 5, 182-96.
  Fink, L.D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach
      to designing college courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.



                                               15




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
  Frantz, A.C., Beebe, S.A., Horvath, V.S., Canales, J., & Swee, D.E. (2005). The roles
     of teaching and learning centers. In S. Chadwick-Blossey & D.R. Robertson (Eds.),
     To Improve the Academy, 23, 72-90.
  Ferren, A. & Mussell, K. (1987). Strengthening faculty development programs through
     evaluation. To Improve the Academy, 133-143.
  Gaff, J.G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  Haras, C., Taylor, S., Sorcinelli, M. D., & von Hoene, L. (Eds.). (2017). Institutional
     commitment to teaching excellence: Assessing the impacts and outcomes of faculty
     development. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from
     https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Institutional-Commitment-to-
     Teaching-Excellence.pdf.
  Hines, S.R. (2009). Investigating faculty development program assessment practices:
     What's being done and how can it be improved? The Journal of Faculty
     Development, 23(3), 5-19.
  Hines, S.R. (2011). How mature teaching and learning centers evaluate their services.
     To Improve the Academy, 30(1), 277-289.
  Hines, S. (2017). Evaluating centers for teaching and learning: A field‐tested model. To
     Improve the Academy, 36 (2), 89-100.
  Hoyt, D.P., & Howard, G.S. (1978). The evaluation of faculty development programs.
     Research in Higher Education, 8, 25-38.
  Jankowski, N. (2017). Unpacking relationships: Instruction and student outcomes.
     Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Retrieved from
     https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Unpacking-Relationships-7.
  Jennings, C.A., Barlar, A.D., & Bartling, C.A. (1991). Trends in college and university
     faculty development programs. Journal of Staff, Program, & Organization
     Development, 9, 147-154.
  Kalish, A., & Plank, K.M. (2010). Program assessment for faculty development. In Kay
     J. Gillespie & D.L. Robertson, (Eds.), A guide to faculty development. Second
     Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  Kucsera, J.V., & Svinicki, M. (2010). Rigorous evaluations of faculty development
     programs. Journal of Faculty Development, 24(2), 5-18.
  MacCormack, P., Snow, M., Gyurko, J., & Sekel, J.C. (2018). Connecting the dots: A
     proposed accountability method for evaluating the efficacy of faculty development
     and       its    impact       on     student     outcomes.        Retrieved     from
     https://acue.org/efficacy_reports/connecting-the-dots-a-proposed-accountability-
     method-for-evaluating-the-efficacy-of-faculty-development-and-its-impact-on-
     student-outcomes/.
  Menges, R.J. & Svinicki, M. (1989). Designing program evaluations: A circular model.
     To Improve the Academy, 81-97.
  Murray, J.P. (2002). The current state of faculty development in two-year colleges. In
     C.L. Outcalt (Ed.), Community college faculty: Characteristics, practices, and
     challenges: New directions for teaching and learning, 118, 89-97. San Francisco,
     CA: Jossey-Bass.
  Nasmith, L., Saroyan, A., Steinert, Y., Daigle, N., & Franco, E.D. (1997). Long-Term
     Impact of Faculty Development Workshops: A Pilot Study. In A.J.J.A. Scherpbier.,


                                               16




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
     C.P.M. Van der Vleuten, J.J. Rethans, A.F.W. Van der Steeg (eds), Advances in
     Medical Education. Springer, Dordrecht. Doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-4886-3_71.
  Nelsen, W. C., & Siegel, M. E. (1980). Effective approaches to faculty development.
     Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
  Plank, K. M., Kalish, A., Rohdieck, S., & Harper, K.A. (2004). A vision beyond
     measurement: Creating an integrated data system for teaching centers. In S.
     Chadwick-Blossey (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, 22.
  POD Network in Higher Education (2016). The 2016 POD Network Membership
     Survey:        Past,        Present,         and      Future.      Retrieved        from
     https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/2016podmembershipreportprintnomarks.p
     df.
  POD Network in Higher Education (2018). Defining what matters: Guidelines for
     Comprehensive Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) Evaluation. Retrieved from
     https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/POD_CTL_Evaluation_Guidelines__2018_.pdf.
  Rubino, A. (1994) Faculty Development Programs and Evaluation in American Colleges and
     Universities. Dissertations. 1856. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1856
  Sheets, K.L., & Henry, R.C. (1984). Assessing the impact of faculty development
     programs in medical education. Journal of Medical Education, 59, 746-748.
  Sheets, K.J., & Henry, R.C. (1988). Evaluation of a family development program for
     family physicians. Medical Teacher, 10(1), 75-83.
  Sorcinelli, M.D., Austin, A. E., Eddy, P.L., & Beach, A.L. (2006). Creating the future
     of faculty development: Learning from the past, understanding the present. Bolton,
     MA: Anker Publishing.
  Stes, A., Min-Leliveld, M., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2010). The impact of
      instructional development in higher education: The state-of-the-art of the research.
      Educational Research Review, 5, 25-49.
  Struthers, B., MacCormack, P., & Taylor, S.C. (2018). Effective teaching: A
      foundational aspect of practices that support student learning. Washington, D.C.:
      American Council on Education. Retrieved from https://acue.org/wp-
     content/uploads/2018/07/Effective-Teaching-A-Foundational-Aspect-of-Practices-
     1.pdf.
  Toombs, W. (1975). A three-dimensional view of faculty development. Journal of
     Higher Education, 46, 701-17.
  Wright, M., Horii, C.V., Felten, P., Sorcinelli, M.D., & Kaplan, M. (2018). Faculty
      development improves teaching and learning. POD Speaks, 2, 1-5. Retrieved from
      https://podnetwork.org/content/uploads/POD-Speaks-Issue-2_Jan2018-1.pdf.
  Wright, M.C. (2011). Measuring a Teaching Center’s Effectiveness. In C. Cook & M.
      Kaplan (Eds), Advancing the Culture of Teaching on Campus: How a Teaching
      Center Can Make a Difference. Sterling, VA: Stylus.




                                               17




                                      Copyright © FrancoAngeli
This work is released under Creative Commons Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives License.
               For terms and conditions of usage please see: http://creativecommons.org
