- Email: [email protected]
Perceptions of faculty development needs based on faculty characteristics
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Research
Perceptions of faculty development needs based on faculty characteristics Andrew Smith, PharmD, BCPS, AQ Cardiology, Karen Hardinger, PharmD, BCPS* University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Kansas City, MO
Abstract Objectives: Many changes in pharmacy education have occurred in the past decade resulting in a need for faculty education. The increasing number of pharmacy schools, larger number of junior faculty, expanding use of technology in teaching, and the changing generation of pharmacy students has allowed educators to reassess their teaching practices. The purpose of this survey was to access faculty’s preferences toward faculty development and determine needs based on faculty characteristics, including degree, rank, duration of appointment, and division. Methods: A survey was distributed to 58 faculty members at the School of Pharmacy. Results: More than half of the faculty responded to the survey (n ⫽ 34, 58%). Faculty members responded that their preferred needs for faculty development centered on teaching. Doctorate of Pharmacy faculty desired development in ability-based learning and establishing authority with students. New faculty members expressed a need for more instruction in manuscript writing and developing a research focus, while more experienced faculty members desired instruction in planning workshops and labs. Tenure track and nontenure track faculty had the most variability in their preferences toward faculty development. Tenure track faculty preferred more growth in the areas of research and development and nontenure track faculty desired more development relating to student issues. Both expressed a desire for more instruction in the areas of teaching. Conclusions: Characteristics of faculty members should be analyzed when developing faculty development programs. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Faculty development; Perceptions; Educators; Survey; Needs assessment
Introduction A successful career in academia requires that faculty members cultivate skills in the three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Faculty development is the means by which educators reach their individual goals in these areas.1 This process varies depending on the institution but generally consists of a combination of selfdirected, organizational, and institutional activities. It has been shown that most faculty have not received comprehensive training in research, scholarship, teaching, and service before their first faculty appointment.2 The Ac* Corresponding author: Karen Hardinger, PharmD, BCPS, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Kansas City, MO 64108. E-mail address: [email protected]
creditation Council for Pharmacy Education addresses the need for faculty development in Standard 26 where it states, ‘The college or school must have an effective continuing professional development program for fulltime, part-time, and voluntary faculty and staff consistent with their responsibilites.’3 A comprehensive needs assessment is useful in constructing a faculty development program. Numerous assessments of faculty development needs have been performed in areas other than pharmacy, such as medicine, dental, and nursing.4 –13 These studies, while diverse in their design, demonstrate a desire by faculty for more development activities focused on teaching and learning. Recently, Scarbecz and colleagues reported a study of the faculty at Tennessee Health Science Center that included pharmacy faculty (49/280 responses, 17.5%) as well as allied health, dentistry, medicine, and nursing faculty.14
1877-1297/12/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2012.05.006
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
This survey focused primarily on the teaching component of faculty development. The most important faculty development need among these colleges was constructing test items. Pharmacy faculty valued this development need more than medicine faculty but placed a similar value on this type of development when compared with the other college’s faculty.14 Studies addressing pharmacy-specific faculty development needs are few in number. In a recent study, the needs of volunteer pharmacy practice preceptors in California were investigated.15 A survey was administered to 576 preceptors of which 236 (40.6%) responded. The primary areas for development needs identified were engaging and motivating students, a primer/update on teaching/precepting strategies, questioning students effectively, communicating effectively with students, and working effectively with different adult learning styles. While this provided interesting and useful information, it is reasonable to assume that because volunteer faculty members have significantly different roles than full-time or part-time faculty, their development needs are different. The remaining information regarding pharmacy faculty development needs was published in two similar studies by MacKinnon in 2003.2,16 Both well-designed studies surveyed faculty members listed on the American College of Clinical Pharmacy roster for demographic information, types of faculty development received, and preferences toward faculty development activities. Items surveyed included preferences toward teaching issues (writing test items, classroom/clinical instruction, writing syllabi, etc.), faculty issues (grant writing, manuscript writing, presentation skills, career planning, etc.), student issues (evaluating learning, student behavior, role of an advisor, etc.), and resource issues (computer issues, distance education, Internet/Web page development for coursework). The first study, which surveyed faculty, demonstrated that resource issues are most concerning for existing faculty and that faculty issues are most concerning for faculty in their first academic appointment.2 The second study that surveyed administrators and Deans reported similar results. The preferences of administrators and Deans agreed with faculty by selecting resource issues as the highest development need for existing faculty and faculty issues as the highest for new faculty.16 The studies presented above represent a summary of pharmacy faculty development needs. However, the pharmacy-specific information is more than 10 years old and new factors are present that may have changed the needs of current pharmacy faculty. These factors include an increasing number of pharmacy schools resulting in an increased number of junior faculty, an increasing use of technology in teaching (satellite campuses, online/hybrid courses, etc.), and a changing generation of pharmacy students. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to examine how faculty members’ preferences toward faculty development may have changed over the last decade.
233
Development needs were also evaluated based on faculty characteristics to determine if these characteristics could be used to tailor a faculty development program.
Methods The study was conducted at a School of Pharmacy within a public university serving more than 14,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. The School of Pharmacy was established in 1885 and educates over 500 students per year at two campuses. The school contains faculty from three different divisions: Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Sciences. The faculty consists of tenure track and nontenure track faculty. Tenure track efforts are weighted toward research (50%), then teaching (20%), and service and practice (10%–15% each). Nontenure track efforts are weighted toward teaching (50%), then research (20%), and service and practice (10%–15% each). The faculty turnover is low at less than 2% per year for the past five years. In the past, our faculty development program has included a 1-year program for new faculty members. In the program, senior faculty members provide monthly meetings that focus on classroom and practice site teaching, practice site development, academic success, research and scholarship, student experiences, experiential learning, personal development, learning styles, postgraduate training programs, and curriculum overview. To assess the current faculty development program, an electronic survey was developed using Survey Monkey (http://SurveyMonkey.com) (Appendix A). The survey was adapted with permission from a similar survey sent to pharmacy educators by MacKinnon2 and reviewed by the faculty development task force before distribution. The content of the survey included the educator’s characteristics, perceptions of the perceived benefits of the educator’s formal and informal education, and preferences toward faculty development in teaching, student issues, scholarship, and resources. The majority of items were closed-ended/forced-choice questions. A five-point Likert scale was used for responses with one representing ‘Strongly Agree’ and five representing ‘Strongly Disagree.’ There were opportunities for participants to provide written responses on the survey. The survey was distributed to 58 full-time faculty members at the School of Pharmacy in February 2011. Faculty members received a letter via e-mail asking them to participate in the survey. The collection period was 14 days and a reminder e-mail was sent seven days after the original request. The study was approved by the Social Sciences Institutional Review Board. Univariate analysis was performed by the Student t test for continuous variables and the 2 test for categorical variables. The relationship between faculty preferences and faculty development were evaluated by Pearson’s correla-
234
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Table 1 Characteristics of faculty surveyed
Previous degree
Year of last degree
Current rank
Current track
Administrative appointment
Division
Years at the School of Pharmacy
Years as faculty member
Type of faculty member
Answer options
Response, %
Response count
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) Bachelor of pharmacy (BS) Bachelor of science (BS) Other* 2000–2010 1990–1999 1980–1989 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Nontenured (nontenure track appointment) Tenured Nontenured (tenure track appointment) None Director or Assistant Director Dean Associate Dean Department Chair or Head Pharmacy Practice and Administration Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharmacology and Toxicology 0–3 years 4–6 years 7–10 years 11–14 years ⬎ 15 years 0–3 years 4–6 years 7–10 years 11–14 years ⬎ 15 years Clinical Basic Science (nonclinical) Social Sciences (nonclinical)
24 74 18 12 12 53 35 12 59 24 18 53 26 18 71 6 3 3 3 79 12 9 41 29 3 18 9 41 18 3 18 21 74 21 3
8 25 6 4 4 18 12 4 20 8 6 18 9 6 24 2 1 1 1 27 4 3 14 10 1 6 3 14 6 1 6 7 25 7 1
* Includes BA, MS, and MPH.
tion method. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS Statistics version 18.0 statistical software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Results Thirty-four (34/58; 58%) faculty members responded to the survey (Table 1). Three-quarters of the respondents had received a Doctorate in Pharmacy and one-quarter had received a Doctorate of Philosophy. More than half of the faculty members had received their degree within the past 10 years (n ⫽ 18, 53%) and most were at the rank of Assistant Professor (n ⫽ 20, 59%) with a nontenure track appointment. A majority of the respondents were in the Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration (n ⫽ 27, 79%). Only a few faculty members had additional education training; certificate program in education (n ⫽
3, 9%), residency teaching certificate (n ⫽ 5, 15%), or professional organizational teaching/research certificate (n ⫽ 4, 12%). Few respondents included additional narrative comments to the survey. Faculty development needs assessment Faculty members believed that their formal (degree program) and informal education (residency, fellowship, postdoctoral) prepared them for the content for which they teach rather than the process by which they teach. Faculty members strongly agreed that the following development topics relating to research and scholarship would be helpful in their academic career development: an overview of promotion and tenure process, manuscript writing, and developing a research focus (Fig. 1). The three most important development topics relating to teaching were test question con-
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
235
Fig. 1. Research and scholarship issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
struction, test item analysis, and how to stimulate selfdirected learning (Fig. 2). Most faculty members agreed that development was needed involving student issues (Fig. 3). Table 2 ranks the top ten faculty development needs as assessed by the survey.
The top three preferred methods for delivering development materials were computer-assisted delivery, live seminars, and online videos. Respondents did not prefer e-mail or teleconferences as modes of material delivery.
Fig. 2. Teaching issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
236
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Fig. 3. Student issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
Preferences toward faculty development based on faculty characteristics A summary of the preferences in faculty development by faculty characteristics are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Degree Respondents were analyzed based on their terminal degree (PhD vs. PharmD). PhD faculty were more likely to desire computer-assisted instruction for delivery of faculty development materials (r ⫽ 0.475; p ⬍ 0.05). PharmD faculty members were more likely to desire instruction in ability based learning (r ⫽ ⫺0.453; p ⬍ 0.05) and faculty development entailing establishing authority with students (r ⫽ ⫺0.394; p ⬍ 0.05).
Table 2 Overall top 10 faculty development preferences (n ⫽ 34) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Development need
Domain
Test question construction Test item analysis How to stimulate self-directed learning Developing alternative instructional approaches Ways to evaluate effective teaching Nontraditional assessment and evaluation methods Role of a faculty advisor Evaluating learning Overview of the promotion and tenure process Curriculum design
Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Student issues Student issues Research and scholarship Teaching
Division Respondents were analyzed based on their divisional assignments. The faculty in the Pharmacy Practice and Administration Division were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of test question construction (r ⫽ 0.427; p ⬍ 0.05), test item analysis (r ⫽ 0.419; p ⬍ 0.05), and group-based learning (r ⫽ 0.403; p ⬍ 0.05). Year of degree Respondents were analyzed based on the time of their terminal degree using the year of 2000 as a break point. Faculty members that received their degree after 2000 were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ ⫺0.686; p ⬍ 0.01), developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ ⫺0.603; p ⬍ 0.01), and manuscript writing (r ⫽ ⫺0.457; p ⬍ 0.05). Rank Respondents were analyzed based on academic rank (i.e., Assistant vs. Associate or Full Professor). Faculty members holding a rank of Assistant Professor were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of manuscript writing (r ⫽ 0.495; p ⬍ 0.05), developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ 0.576; p ⬍ 0.01), and developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ 0.576; p ⬍ 0.01). Faculty with the rank of Associate Professor or Professor were more likely to desire faculty development relating to planning workshops and labs (r ⫽ ⫺0.479; p ⬍ 0.05). Duration of faculty appointment Respondents were analyzed based on duration of faculty appointment using three years as a break point. Persons that
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
237
Table 3 Faculty development preferences based on faculty characteristics Comparison
Element
Domain
R
p value
PharmD vs. PhD
Ability based learning Establishing authority with students Computer-assisted instruction (e.g., Webinar) Test question construction Test item analysis Group-based learning Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Manuscript writing Manuscript writing Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Planning workshops and labs Time management of faculty responsibilities Manuscript writing Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus
Teaching Student issues Resource issues Teaching Teaching Teaching Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Teaching Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship
⫺0.453 ⫺0.394 0.475 0.427 0.419 0.403 0.686 0.603 0.457 0.495 0.544 0.576 ⫺0.479 0.394 0.417 0.49 0.452
⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05
DPPA* vs. P&T†/pharmaceutics
Degree earlier than 1999 vs. after 2000
Assistant vs. higher rank
Faculty ⬍ 3 vs. ⬎ 3 years
* Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration. † Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology.
had been faculty members for less than three years indicated that they needed development in the areas of time management of faculty responsibilities (teaching, scholarship, and service) (r ⫽ 0.394; p ⬍ 0.05), manuscript writing (r ⫽ 0.417; p ⬍ 0.05), developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ 0.490; p ⬍ 0.05), and developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ 0.452; p ⬍ 0.05).
Tenure Tenure-track faculty were more likely to desire development in the areas of writing winning grants (r ⫽ ⫺0.403; p ⬍ 0.05). Nontenure track faculty members were more likely to desire faculty development in numerous areas of teaching and student issues (Table 4). Discussion
Table 4 Tenure track versus nontenure track preferences toward faculty development Element
Domain
R
p value
Writing winning grants
Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Teaching
⫺0.403
⬍ 0.05
0.552
⬍ 0.01
0.486
⬍ 0.05
Teaching
0.556
⬍ 0.01
Teaching Teaching Teaching Student issues
0.415 0.500 0.454 0.471
⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05
Student issues Student issues
0.528 0.629
⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01
Student issues
0.569
⬍ 0.01
Student issues
0.483
⬍ 0.05
Presentation skills Ways to evaluate effective teaching Assessing educational resources (textbooks, videos, etc.) Test question construction Curriculum design Evaluating learning Managing student behavior (conflict resolution) Role of a faculty advisor The instructor–student relationship Establishing authority with students Mentoring skills
Demands on pharmacy faculty members have made management of clinical practice, teaching responsibilities, service opportunities, research efforts, and expectations for promotion and tenure a difficult task. The results of this survey of 58 pharmacy school faculty members demonstrate the areas needed for improvement in faculty development based on characteristics. In this survey, most of the respondents were faculty members with a Doctorate of Pharmacy that was awarded within the past ten years and were clinical faculty in the Pharmacy Practice and Administration Division with the rank of Assistant Professor. The characteristics of the faculty that responded to the survey may represent nationwide changes to schools of pharmacy in that many schools have moved toward reliance on nontenure track junior pharmacy practice faculty to meet increasing clinical educational demands. Recently, Raehl extracted data from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy System and found that the number of pharmacy practice Assistant Professors that were nontenure track increased substantially (59%–72%) from academic year 1995–1996 to academic year 2000 –2001.17 For research and scholarship issues, the top three areas that faculty indicated they needed (or would have needed) faculty development were an overview of the promotion and tenure process, manuscript writing, and developing a re-
238
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
search agenda/focus. These needs agree with the published literature.18,19 In a recent 340-person survey, faculty members reported a need for help in identifying a research question and how to answer it.18 Second, a review of the literature pertaining to nursing, medical, dental, and pharmacy faculty identified a lack of understanding the promotion and tenure process as a barrier to scholarship in all disciplines.19 When compared with the MacKinnon survey of faculty ten years earlier, our present-day faculty demonstrated a greater need for research and scholarship faculty development, especially in the three areas mentioned above.2 Of note, our faculty members preferred less development in service, an area not accessed by previous surveys. This survey revealed several interesting faculty preferences that related to teaching development. In contrast to previous surveys, our faculty expressed the most interest in developing skills related not only to test question construction but also test item analysis. This finding may be related to the fact that a large percentage of junior faculty responded to the survey.2 Also relating to teaching issues the faculty strongly agreed with the desire to learn how to stimulate self-directed student learning, an issue not raised in previous surveys. In concordance with MacKinnon’s survey, our faculty rated planning workshops and labs as the least important faculty development issue needed in academic career development.2 Faculty agreed that development in the area of student issues would help their academic career development. The largest variation between the faculty in our study and previous reports was in the area of establishing authority with students.2 Perhaps this disparity may be a result of the fact that the faculty surveyed in our study are teaching a different generation of students.20 Many of our current students were born in the late 1980s while the faculty in MacKinnon’s survey were teaching students born in the late 1970s.2 Another possible explanation for this difference could have been that relatively young faculty desire more instruction in developing authority as described in the survey. To the best of our knowledge, current literature does not include a discussion of career stages and faculty development needs. In our study, the most significant disparity in preferences in faculty development was seen among tenure and nontenure track faculty. Tenure track faculty preferred that a faculty development program include more instruction on writing winning grants, while nontenure track faculty desired instruction in many areas of teaching and student issues. These preferences reflect the division of effort distribution most schools. The tenure track faculty spends more of their effort on research and scholarship, while nontenure track faculty focus on teaching. Despite these differences, we believe a significant portion of faculty development programs should be teaching-focused. Educating future faculty members may begin in pharmacy school and residency programs, although development should continue throughout a pharmacist’s career. Guidance in designing a faculty development program can be found in the American College of Clinical Pharmacy position statement on
the essential components of a faculty development program.21 Additionally, this report demonstrates that faculty characteristics should be considered when developing a program. A faculty that consists of mostly Doctorate of Pharmacy faculty may require more development in ability-based learning and establishing authority with students. Test question construction, test item analysis, and group-based learning may be items to include in a faculty development program that has a majority of pharmacy practice faculty. A relatively young faculty may need more instruction in manuscript writing and developing a research focus and agenda, and a more experienced faculty may desire additional instruction in planning workshops and labs.
Conclusions Several demands are placed on pharmacy faculty members and this has made their management of clinical practice, teaching responsibilities, service opportunities, research efforts, and expectations for promotion and tenure a difficult task. The results of this survey of 58 School of Pharmacy faculty members demonstrate the areas needed for improvement in faculty development. Tenure track and nontenure track faculty had the most variability in their preferences toward faculty development. Faculty members responded that their top needs for faculty development centered on teaching, including test question construction, test item analysis, how to stimulate self-directed learning, developing alternative instructional approaches, and ways to evaluate effective teaching. Characteristics of faculty members should be analyzed when developing faculty development programs. The results of our survey demonstrate that preference in faculty development varies greatly based on faculty characteristics, including degree, division, experience, rank, and tenure.
References 1. Boucher BA, Chyka PJ, Fitzgerald WL, et al. A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article 27. 2. MacKinnon GE. An investigation of pharmacy faculty attitudes toward faculty development. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 11. 3. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and guidelines for the professional programs in pharmacy leading to the doctor of pharmacy degree. Available at: http://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/FinalS2007Guidelines2.0.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2012. 4. McLeod PJ, Steinert Y, Conochie L, et al. A faculty-development needs assessment at one medical school. Acad Med 1997;72:558 –9. 5. Riner ME, Billings DM. Faculty development for teaching in a changing health care environment: A statewide needs assessment. J Nurs Educ 1999;38:427–9.
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239 6. Foley BJ, Redman RW, Horn EV, et al. Determining nursing faculty development needs. Nurs Outlook 2003;51:227– 32. 7. Pololi LH, Dennis K, Winn GM, et al. A needs assessment of medical school faculty: Caring for the caretakers. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2003;23:21–9. 8. Bahar-Ozvaris S, Aslan D, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, et al. A faculty development program evaluation: From needs assessment to long-term effects, of the teaching skills improvement program. Teach Learn Med 2004;16:368 –75. 9. Farley H, Casaletto J, Ankel F, et al. An assessment of the faculty development needs of junior clinical faculty in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:664 – 8. 10. Guo Y, Sippola E, Feng X, et al. International medical school faculty development: The results of a needs assessment survey among medical educators in China. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14:91–102. 11. Amin Z, Eng KH, Seng CY, et al. A multi-institutional survey on faculty development needs, priorities and preferences in medical education in an Asian medical school. Med Educ Online 2009;14:16. 12. O’Sullivan EM. A national study on the attitudes of Irish dental faculty members to faculty development. Eur J Dent Educ 2010;14:43–9. 13. Seritan AL, Iosif AM, Hyvonen S, et al. Gender differences in faculty development: A faculty needs survey. Acad Psychiatry 2010;34:136 – 40.
239
14. Scarbecz M, Russell CK, Shreve RG, et al. Faculty development to improve teaching at a health sciences center: A needs assessment. J Dent Educ 2011;75:145–59. 15. Assemi M, Corelli RL, Ambrose PJ. Development needs of volunteer pharmacy preceptors. Am J Pharm Educ 2011;75: Article 10. 16. MacKinnon GE. Administrator and dean perceptions toward faculty development in academic pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 97. 17. Raehl CL. Changes in pharmacy practice faculty 1995–2001: Implications for junior faculty development. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22:445– 62. 18. Robles JR, Youmans SL, Byrd DC, et al. Perceived barriers to scholarship and research among pharmacy practice faculty: Survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force. Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73:Article 17. 19. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, et al. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 91. 20. Ryan M, Romanelli F, Smith K, et al. Identifying and teaching generation x pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 42. 21. Boyce EG, Burkiewicz JS, Haase MR, et al. ACCP white paper: Clinical Faculty Development. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29:124 – 6.
239.e1
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Appendix A Faculty development needs assessment survey 1. Demographics 1. Check all degrees that you have received: □ Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) □ Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) □ Doctor of Education (EdD) □ Master of Education (MEd) □ Master of Science (MS) □ Bachelor of Science (BS) □ Bachelor of Arts (BA) □ Bachelor of Pharmacy (BS) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. I received my last academic degree in: □ 2000 –2010 □ 1990 –1999 □ 1980 –1989 □ 1970 –1979 □ 1960 –1969 □ before 1960 □ Other (please specify): _______________ 3. My current rank as a pharmacy faculty member is the following: □ Lecturer □ Instructor □ Assistant Professor □ Associate Professor □ Professor □ Emeritus Professor □ Other (please specify): _______________ 4. My status with respect to tenure or continuous contract is: □ Nontenured (tenure track appointment) □ Nontenured (nontenure track appointment) □ Tenured □ Does Not Apply 5. I have a concurrent administrative appointment that is at the following level: □ Dean □ Associate Dean □ Assistant Dean □ Department Chair or Head □ Vice Chair or Assistant Head □ Director or Assistant Director □ None □ Other (please specify): _______________ 6. My primary faculty appointment resides in the following area: □ Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences □ Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology □ Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration □ Other (please specify): _______________ 7. How many years have you been at this institution? □ 0 –3 years □ 4 – 6 years □ 7–10 years □ 11–14 years
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
239.e2
□ 15–18 years □ ⬎18 years 8. How many years have you been a faculty member? □ 0 –3 years □ 4 – 6 years □ 7–10 years □ 11–14 years □ 15–18 years □ ⬎18 years 9. I would classify myself as the following type of faculty member: □ Clinical faculty □ Basic Science faculty (nonclinical) □ Social Sciences (nonclinical) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. Faculty Development Information INSTRUCTIONS: Answer all questions to the best of your ability. For questions that do not pertain to you, please check the N/A column. For purposes of answering the following questions, some definitions may be helpful. ● Mentor: Roles a mentor may provide include advising, counseling, listening, nurturing, critiquing, advocating, teaching, etc. ● Formal faculty development programs: Includes other than discipline-specific Masters level degree or curricular-based certificate programs specifically in the area of education that typically take place in postsecondary institutions. ● Informal faculty development programs: Includes other than discipline-specific minicourses, continuing education programs, workshops, or seminars specifically in the area of education that are narrower. 1. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING
I would like to see more formal faculty development programs made available to me. I would like to see more informal faculty development programs available to me. The level of faculty development activities at our School of Pharmacy is adequate. Our School of Pharmacy offers informal faculty development programs. School administration supports faculty development activities by providing financial support and or release time to attend such programming. The level of faculty development activities at our school should be increased. Our School of Pharmacy offers formal faculty development programs.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2. RESEARCH AND SCHLORSHIP ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Career planning Overview of the promotion and tenure process Time management of faculty responsibilities (teaching, scholarship, and service) Writing winning grants for NIH, NSF, private foundations, etc.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
239.e3
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Effective management of funded grants (post award process) Manuscript writing Presentation skills Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Understanding the institutional review process (IBC, IRB, IACUC) Opportunities and needs for School of Pharmacy service activities Opportunities and needs for community services (school, city) How to do effective and useful service work without “burning oneself down”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
3. TEACHING ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Ways to evaluate effective teaching Developing learning objectives Developing course syllabi Lecturing/giving presentation/small group teaching Lecturing/giving presentation/large group teaching Planning workshops and labs Assessing educational resources (textbooks, videos, etc.) Test question construction Test item analysis Curriculum design Developing alternative instructional approaches Nontraditional assessment and evaluation methods Group-based learning Problem-based learning Ability-based learning Clinical teaching (inpatient/ outpatient precepting) Teaching using evidencebased medicine How to stimulate selfdirected learning
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
239.e4
4. STUDENT ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Evaluating learning Managing student behavior (conflict resolution) Role of a faculty advisor The instructor–student relationship Establishing authority with students Mentoring skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
5. RESOURCE ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Designing visual aids to enhance learning Computer-assisted instruction Distance learning Internet and Web page development for courseware Blackboard site development
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
3. Faculty Development Resources 1. I have completed the following formal faculty development programming (check all that apply). □ Attained a Masters degree in Education □ Completed a certificate program in Education (e.g. New Faculty Teaching Scholar) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. I have completed an informal faculty development programming (check all that apply). □ Residency teaching certificate □ Professional Organizational teaching/research certificate (e.g., ACCP or AACP) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 3. How appealing are the following methods for obtaining and completing informal or formal faculty development programming?
Print materials Audio recording Video (e.g., Tegrity) Telephone/teleconference Computer-assisted instruction (e.g.,Webinar) E-mail Satellite video Live seminars Classroom instruction Other (please specify): _______________
Very Appealing
Appealing
Neutral
Not Appealing
Not Appealing at All
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239 http://www.pharmacyteaching.com
Research
Perceptions of faculty development needs based on faculty characteristics Andrew Smith, PharmD, BCPS, AQ Cardiology, Karen Hardinger, PharmD, BCPS* University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Kansas City, MO
Abstract Objectives: Many changes in pharmacy education have occurred in the past decade resulting in a need for faculty education. The increasing number of pharmacy schools, larger number of junior faculty, expanding use of technology in teaching, and the changing generation of pharmacy students has allowed educators to reassess their teaching practices. The purpose of this survey was to access faculty’s preferences toward faculty development and determine needs based on faculty characteristics, including degree, rank, duration of appointment, and division. Methods: A survey was distributed to 58 faculty members at the School of Pharmacy. Results: More than half of the faculty responded to the survey (n ⫽ 34, 58%). Faculty members responded that their preferred needs for faculty development centered on teaching. Doctorate of Pharmacy faculty desired development in ability-based learning and establishing authority with students. New faculty members expressed a need for more instruction in manuscript writing and developing a research focus, while more experienced faculty members desired instruction in planning workshops and labs. Tenure track and nontenure track faculty had the most variability in their preferences toward faculty development. Tenure track faculty preferred more growth in the areas of research and development and nontenure track faculty desired more development relating to student issues. Both expressed a desire for more instruction in the areas of teaching. Conclusions: Characteristics of faculty members should be analyzed when developing faculty development programs. © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Faculty development; Perceptions; Educators; Survey; Needs assessment
Introduction A successful career in academia requires that faculty members cultivate skills in the three areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. Faculty development is the means by which educators reach their individual goals in these areas.1 This process varies depending on the institution but generally consists of a combination of selfdirected, organizational, and institutional activities. It has been shown that most faculty have not received comprehensive training in research, scholarship, teaching, and service before their first faculty appointment.2 The Ac* Corresponding author: Karen Hardinger, PharmD, BCPS, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Kansas City, MO 64108. E-mail address: [email protected]
creditation Council for Pharmacy Education addresses the need for faculty development in Standard 26 where it states, ‘The college or school must have an effective continuing professional development program for fulltime, part-time, and voluntary faculty and staff consistent with their responsibilites.’3 A comprehensive needs assessment is useful in constructing a faculty development program. Numerous assessments of faculty development needs have been performed in areas other than pharmacy, such as medicine, dental, and nursing.4 –13 These studies, while diverse in their design, demonstrate a desire by faculty for more development activities focused on teaching and learning. Recently, Scarbecz and colleagues reported a study of the faculty at Tennessee Health Science Center that included pharmacy faculty (49/280 responses, 17.5%) as well as allied health, dentistry, medicine, and nursing faculty.14
1877-1297/12/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2012.05.006
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
This survey focused primarily on the teaching component of faculty development. The most important faculty development need among these colleges was constructing test items. Pharmacy faculty valued this development need more than medicine faculty but placed a similar value on this type of development when compared with the other college’s faculty.14 Studies addressing pharmacy-specific faculty development needs are few in number. In a recent study, the needs of volunteer pharmacy practice preceptors in California were investigated.15 A survey was administered to 576 preceptors of which 236 (40.6%) responded. The primary areas for development needs identified were engaging and motivating students, a primer/update on teaching/precepting strategies, questioning students effectively, communicating effectively with students, and working effectively with different adult learning styles. While this provided interesting and useful information, it is reasonable to assume that because volunteer faculty members have significantly different roles than full-time or part-time faculty, their development needs are different. The remaining information regarding pharmacy faculty development needs was published in two similar studies by MacKinnon in 2003.2,16 Both well-designed studies surveyed faculty members listed on the American College of Clinical Pharmacy roster for demographic information, types of faculty development received, and preferences toward faculty development activities. Items surveyed included preferences toward teaching issues (writing test items, classroom/clinical instruction, writing syllabi, etc.), faculty issues (grant writing, manuscript writing, presentation skills, career planning, etc.), student issues (evaluating learning, student behavior, role of an advisor, etc.), and resource issues (computer issues, distance education, Internet/Web page development for coursework). The first study, which surveyed faculty, demonstrated that resource issues are most concerning for existing faculty and that faculty issues are most concerning for faculty in their first academic appointment.2 The second study that surveyed administrators and Deans reported similar results. The preferences of administrators and Deans agreed with faculty by selecting resource issues as the highest development need for existing faculty and faculty issues as the highest for new faculty.16 The studies presented above represent a summary of pharmacy faculty development needs. However, the pharmacy-specific information is more than 10 years old and new factors are present that may have changed the needs of current pharmacy faculty. These factors include an increasing number of pharmacy schools resulting in an increased number of junior faculty, an increasing use of technology in teaching (satellite campuses, online/hybrid courses, etc.), and a changing generation of pharmacy students. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to examine how faculty members’ preferences toward faculty development may have changed over the last decade.
233
Development needs were also evaluated based on faculty characteristics to determine if these characteristics could be used to tailor a faculty development program.
Methods The study was conducted at a School of Pharmacy within a public university serving more than 14,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. The School of Pharmacy was established in 1885 and educates over 500 students per year at two campuses. The school contains faculty from three different divisions: Pharmacy Practice and Administration, Pharmacology and Toxicology, and Pharmaceutical Sciences. The faculty consists of tenure track and nontenure track faculty. Tenure track efforts are weighted toward research (50%), then teaching (20%), and service and practice (10%–15% each). Nontenure track efforts are weighted toward teaching (50%), then research (20%), and service and practice (10%–15% each). The faculty turnover is low at less than 2% per year for the past five years. In the past, our faculty development program has included a 1-year program for new faculty members. In the program, senior faculty members provide monthly meetings that focus on classroom and practice site teaching, practice site development, academic success, research and scholarship, student experiences, experiential learning, personal development, learning styles, postgraduate training programs, and curriculum overview. To assess the current faculty development program, an electronic survey was developed using Survey Monkey (http://SurveyMonkey.com) (Appendix A). The survey was adapted with permission from a similar survey sent to pharmacy educators by MacKinnon2 and reviewed by the faculty development task force before distribution. The content of the survey included the educator’s characteristics, perceptions of the perceived benefits of the educator’s formal and informal education, and preferences toward faculty development in teaching, student issues, scholarship, and resources. The majority of items were closed-ended/forced-choice questions. A five-point Likert scale was used for responses with one representing ‘Strongly Agree’ and five representing ‘Strongly Disagree.’ There were opportunities for participants to provide written responses on the survey. The survey was distributed to 58 full-time faculty members at the School of Pharmacy in February 2011. Faculty members received a letter via e-mail asking them to participate in the survey. The collection period was 14 days and a reminder e-mail was sent seven days after the original request. The study was approved by the Social Sciences Institutional Review Board. Univariate analysis was performed by the Student t test for continuous variables and the 2 test for categorical variables. The relationship between faculty preferences and faculty development were evaluated by Pearson’s correla-
234
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Table 1 Characteristics of faculty surveyed
Previous degree
Year of last degree
Current rank
Current track
Administrative appointment
Division
Years at the School of Pharmacy
Years as faculty member
Type of faculty member
Answer options
Response, %
Response count
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) Bachelor of pharmacy (BS) Bachelor of science (BS) Other* 2000–2010 1990–1999 1980–1989 Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor Nontenured (nontenure track appointment) Tenured Nontenured (tenure track appointment) None Director or Assistant Director Dean Associate Dean Department Chair or Head Pharmacy Practice and Administration Pharmaceutical Sciences Pharmacology and Toxicology 0–3 years 4–6 years 7–10 years 11–14 years ⬎ 15 years 0–3 years 4–6 years 7–10 years 11–14 years ⬎ 15 years Clinical Basic Science (nonclinical) Social Sciences (nonclinical)
24 74 18 12 12 53 35 12 59 24 18 53 26 18 71 6 3 3 3 79 12 9 41 29 3 18 9 41 18 3 18 21 74 21 3
8 25 6 4 4 18 12 4 20 8 6 18 9 6 24 2 1 1 1 27 4 3 14 10 1 6 3 14 6 1 6 7 25 7 1
* Includes BA, MS, and MPH.
tion method. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS Statistics version 18.0 statistical software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Results Thirty-four (34/58; 58%) faculty members responded to the survey (Table 1). Three-quarters of the respondents had received a Doctorate in Pharmacy and one-quarter had received a Doctorate of Philosophy. More than half of the faculty members had received their degree within the past 10 years (n ⫽ 18, 53%) and most were at the rank of Assistant Professor (n ⫽ 20, 59%) with a nontenure track appointment. A majority of the respondents were in the Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration (n ⫽ 27, 79%). Only a few faculty members had additional education training; certificate program in education (n ⫽
3, 9%), residency teaching certificate (n ⫽ 5, 15%), or professional organizational teaching/research certificate (n ⫽ 4, 12%). Few respondents included additional narrative comments to the survey. Faculty development needs assessment Faculty members believed that their formal (degree program) and informal education (residency, fellowship, postdoctoral) prepared them for the content for which they teach rather than the process by which they teach. Faculty members strongly agreed that the following development topics relating to research and scholarship would be helpful in their academic career development: an overview of promotion and tenure process, manuscript writing, and developing a research focus (Fig. 1). The three most important development topics relating to teaching were test question con-
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
235
Fig. 1. Research and scholarship issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
struction, test item analysis, and how to stimulate selfdirected learning (Fig. 2). Most faculty members agreed that development was needed involving student issues (Fig. 3). Table 2 ranks the top ten faculty development needs as assessed by the survey.
The top three preferred methods for delivering development materials were computer-assisted delivery, live seminars, and online videos. Respondents did not prefer e-mail or teleconferences as modes of material delivery.
Fig. 2. Teaching issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
236
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Fig. 3. Student issues. Answers to the survey question, “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development.”
Preferences toward faculty development based on faculty characteristics A summary of the preferences in faculty development by faculty characteristics are presented in Tables 3 and 4. Degree Respondents were analyzed based on their terminal degree (PhD vs. PharmD). PhD faculty were more likely to desire computer-assisted instruction for delivery of faculty development materials (r ⫽ 0.475; p ⬍ 0.05). PharmD faculty members were more likely to desire instruction in ability based learning (r ⫽ ⫺0.453; p ⬍ 0.05) and faculty development entailing establishing authority with students (r ⫽ ⫺0.394; p ⬍ 0.05).
Table 2 Overall top 10 faculty development preferences (n ⫽ 34) Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Development need
Domain
Test question construction Test item analysis How to stimulate self-directed learning Developing alternative instructional approaches Ways to evaluate effective teaching Nontraditional assessment and evaluation methods Role of a faculty advisor Evaluating learning Overview of the promotion and tenure process Curriculum design
Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Teaching Student issues Student issues Research and scholarship Teaching
Division Respondents were analyzed based on their divisional assignments. The faculty in the Pharmacy Practice and Administration Division were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of test question construction (r ⫽ 0.427; p ⬍ 0.05), test item analysis (r ⫽ 0.419; p ⬍ 0.05), and group-based learning (r ⫽ 0.403; p ⬍ 0.05). Year of degree Respondents were analyzed based on the time of their terminal degree using the year of 2000 as a break point. Faculty members that received their degree after 2000 were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ ⫺0.686; p ⬍ 0.01), developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ ⫺0.603; p ⬍ 0.01), and manuscript writing (r ⫽ ⫺0.457; p ⬍ 0.05). Rank Respondents were analyzed based on academic rank (i.e., Assistant vs. Associate or Full Professor). Faculty members holding a rank of Assistant Professor were more likely to desire faculty development in the areas of manuscript writing (r ⫽ 0.495; p ⬍ 0.05), developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ 0.576; p ⬍ 0.01), and developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ 0.576; p ⬍ 0.01). Faculty with the rank of Associate Professor or Professor were more likely to desire faculty development relating to planning workshops and labs (r ⫽ ⫺0.479; p ⬍ 0.05). Duration of faculty appointment Respondents were analyzed based on duration of faculty appointment using three years as a break point. Persons that
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
237
Table 3 Faculty development preferences based on faculty characteristics Comparison
Element
Domain
R
p value
PharmD vs. PhD
Ability based learning Establishing authority with students Computer-assisted instruction (e.g., Webinar) Test question construction Test item analysis Group-based learning Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Manuscript writing Manuscript writing Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Planning workshops and labs Time management of faculty responsibilities Manuscript writing Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus
Teaching Student issues Resource issues Teaching Teaching Teaching Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Teaching Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Research and scholarship
⫺0.453 ⫺0.394 0.475 0.427 0.419 0.403 0.686 0.603 0.457 0.495 0.544 0.576 ⫺0.479 0.394 0.417 0.49 0.452
⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05
DPPA* vs. P&T†/pharmaceutics
Degree earlier than 1999 vs. after 2000
Assistant vs. higher rank
Faculty ⬍ 3 vs. ⬎ 3 years
* Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration. † Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology.
had been faculty members for less than three years indicated that they needed development in the areas of time management of faculty responsibilities (teaching, scholarship, and service) (r ⫽ 0.394; p ⬍ 0.05), manuscript writing (r ⫽ 0.417; p ⬍ 0.05), developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio (r ⫽ 0.490; p ⬍ 0.05), and developing a research agenda/focus (r ⫽ 0.452; p ⬍ 0.05).
Tenure Tenure-track faculty were more likely to desire development in the areas of writing winning grants (r ⫽ ⫺0.403; p ⬍ 0.05). Nontenure track faculty members were more likely to desire faculty development in numerous areas of teaching and student issues (Table 4). Discussion
Table 4 Tenure track versus nontenure track preferences toward faculty development Element
Domain
R
p value
Writing winning grants
Research and scholarship Research and scholarship Teaching
⫺0.403
⬍ 0.05
0.552
⬍ 0.01
0.486
⬍ 0.05
Teaching
0.556
⬍ 0.01
Teaching Teaching Teaching Student issues
0.415 0.500 0.454 0.471
⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05 ⬍ 0.05
Student issues Student issues
0.528 0.629
⬍ 0.01 ⬍ 0.01
Student issues
0.569
⬍ 0.01
Student issues
0.483
⬍ 0.05
Presentation skills Ways to evaluate effective teaching Assessing educational resources (textbooks, videos, etc.) Test question construction Curriculum design Evaluating learning Managing student behavior (conflict resolution) Role of a faculty advisor The instructor–student relationship Establishing authority with students Mentoring skills
Demands on pharmacy faculty members have made management of clinical practice, teaching responsibilities, service opportunities, research efforts, and expectations for promotion and tenure a difficult task. The results of this survey of 58 pharmacy school faculty members demonstrate the areas needed for improvement in faculty development based on characteristics. In this survey, most of the respondents were faculty members with a Doctorate of Pharmacy that was awarded within the past ten years and were clinical faculty in the Pharmacy Practice and Administration Division with the rank of Assistant Professor. The characteristics of the faculty that responded to the survey may represent nationwide changes to schools of pharmacy in that many schools have moved toward reliance on nontenure track junior pharmacy practice faculty to meet increasing clinical educational demands. Recently, Raehl extracted data from the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy System and found that the number of pharmacy practice Assistant Professors that were nontenure track increased substantially (59%–72%) from academic year 1995–1996 to academic year 2000 –2001.17 For research and scholarship issues, the top three areas that faculty indicated they needed (or would have needed) faculty development were an overview of the promotion and tenure process, manuscript writing, and developing a re-
238
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
search agenda/focus. These needs agree with the published literature.18,19 In a recent 340-person survey, faculty members reported a need for help in identifying a research question and how to answer it.18 Second, a review of the literature pertaining to nursing, medical, dental, and pharmacy faculty identified a lack of understanding the promotion and tenure process as a barrier to scholarship in all disciplines.19 When compared with the MacKinnon survey of faculty ten years earlier, our present-day faculty demonstrated a greater need for research and scholarship faculty development, especially in the three areas mentioned above.2 Of note, our faculty members preferred less development in service, an area not accessed by previous surveys. This survey revealed several interesting faculty preferences that related to teaching development. In contrast to previous surveys, our faculty expressed the most interest in developing skills related not only to test question construction but also test item analysis. This finding may be related to the fact that a large percentage of junior faculty responded to the survey.2 Also relating to teaching issues the faculty strongly agreed with the desire to learn how to stimulate self-directed student learning, an issue not raised in previous surveys. In concordance with MacKinnon’s survey, our faculty rated planning workshops and labs as the least important faculty development issue needed in academic career development.2 Faculty agreed that development in the area of student issues would help their academic career development. The largest variation between the faculty in our study and previous reports was in the area of establishing authority with students.2 Perhaps this disparity may be a result of the fact that the faculty surveyed in our study are teaching a different generation of students.20 Many of our current students were born in the late 1980s while the faculty in MacKinnon’s survey were teaching students born in the late 1970s.2 Another possible explanation for this difference could have been that relatively young faculty desire more instruction in developing authority as described in the survey. To the best of our knowledge, current literature does not include a discussion of career stages and faculty development needs. In our study, the most significant disparity in preferences in faculty development was seen among tenure and nontenure track faculty. Tenure track faculty preferred that a faculty development program include more instruction on writing winning grants, while nontenure track faculty desired instruction in many areas of teaching and student issues. These preferences reflect the division of effort distribution most schools. The tenure track faculty spends more of their effort on research and scholarship, while nontenure track faculty focus on teaching. Despite these differences, we believe a significant portion of faculty development programs should be teaching-focused. Educating future faculty members may begin in pharmacy school and residency programs, although development should continue throughout a pharmacist’s career. Guidance in designing a faculty development program can be found in the American College of Clinical Pharmacy position statement on
the essential components of a faculty development program.21 Additionally, this report demonstrates that faculty characteristics should be considered when developing a program. A faculty that consists of mostly Doctorate of Pharmacy faculty may require more development in ability-based learning and establishing authority with students. Test question construction, test item analysis, and group-based learning may be items to include in a faculty development program that has a majority of pharmacy practice faculty. A relatively young faculty may need more instruction in manuscript writing and developing a research focus and agenda, and a more experienced faculty may desire additional instruction in planning workshops and labs.
Conclusions Several demands are placed on pharmacy faculty members and this has made their management of clinical practice, teaching responsibilities, service opportunities, research efforts, and expectations for promotion and tenure a difficult task. The results of this survey of 58 School of Pharmacy faculty members demonstrate the areas needed for improvement in faculty development. Tenure track and nontenure track faculty had the most variability in their preferences toward faculty development. Faculty members responded that their top needs for faculty development centered on teaching, including test question construction, test item analysis, how to stimulate self-directed learning, developing alternative instructional approaches, and ways to evaluate effective teaching. Characteristics of faculty members should be analyzed when developing faculty development programs. The results of our survey demonstrate that preference in faculty development varies greatly based on faculty characteristics, including degree, division, experience, rank, and tenure.
References 1. Boucher BA, Chyka PJ, Fitzgerald WL, et al. A comprehensive approach to faculty development. Am J Pharm Educ 2006;70:Article 27. 2. MacKinnon GE. An investigation of pharmacy faculty attitudes toward faculty development. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 11. 3. Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education. Accreditation standards and guidelines for the professional programs in pharmacy leading to the doctor of pharmacy degree. Available at: http://www.acpe-accredit.org/pdf/FinalS2007Guidelines2.0.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2012. 4. McLeod PJ, Steinert Y, Conochie L, et al. A faculty-development needs assessment at one medical school. Acad Med 1997;72:558 –9. 5. Riner ME, Billings DM. Faculty development for teaching in a changing health care environment: A statewide needs assessment. J Nurs Educ 1999;38:427–9.
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239 6. Foley BJ, Redman RW, Horn EV, et al. Determining nursing faculty development needs. Nurs Outlook 2003;51:227– 32. 7. Pololi LH, Dennis K, Winn GM, et al. A needs assessment of medical school faculty: Caring for the caretakers. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2003;23:21–9. 8. Bahar-Ozvaris S, Aslan D, Sahin-Hodoglugil N, et al. A faculty development program evaluation: From needs assessment to long-term effects, of the teaching skills improvement program. Teach Learn Med 2004;16:368 –75. 9. Farley H, Casaletto J, Ankel F, et al. An assessment of the faculty development needs of junior clinical faculty in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:664 – 8. 10. Guo Y, Sippola E, Feng X, et al. International medical school faculty development: The results of a needs assessment survey among medical educators in China. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2009;14:91–102. 11. Amin Z, Eng KH, Seng CY, et al. A multi-institutional survey on faculty development needs, priorities and preferences in medical education in an Asian medical school. Med Educ Online 2009;14:16. 12. O’Sullivan EM. A national study on the attitudes of Irish dental faculty members to faculty development. Eur J Dent Educ 2010;14:43–9. 13. Seritan AL, Iosif AM, Hyvonen S, et al. Gender differences in faculty development: A faculty needs survey. Acad Psychiatry 2010;34:136 – 40.
239
14. Scarbecz M, Russell CK, Shreve RG, et al. Faculty development to improve teaching at a health sciences center: A needs assessment. J Dent Educ 2011;75:145–59. 15. Assemi M, Corelli RL, Ambrose PJ. Development needs of volunteer pharmacy preceptors. Am J Pharm Educ 2011;75: Article 10. 16. MacKinnon GE. Administrator and dean perceptions toward faculty development in academic pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 97. 17. Raehl CL. Changes in pharmacy practice faculty 1995–2001: Implications for junior faculty development. Pharmacotherapy 2002;22:445– 62. 18. Robles JR, Youmans SL, Byrd DC, et al. Perceived barriers to scholarship and research among pharmacy practice faculty: Survey report from the AACP Scholarship/Research Faculty Development Task Force. Am J Pharm Educ 2009;73:Article 17. 19. Smesny AL, Williams JS, Brazeau GA, et al. Barriers to scholarship in dentistry, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy practice faculty. Am J Pharm Educ 2007;71:Article 91. 20. Ryan M, Romanelli F, Smith K, et al. Identifying and teaching generation x pharmacy students. Am J Pharm Educ 2003;67:Article 42. 21. Boyce EG, Burkiewicz JS, Haase MR, et al. ACCP white paper: Clinical Faculty Development. Pharmacotherapy 2009; 29:124 – 6.
239.e1
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Appendix A Faculty development needs assessment survey 1. Demographics 1. Check all degrees that you have received: □ Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) □ Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) □ Doctor of Education (EdD) □ Master of Education (MEd) □ Master of Science (MS) □ Bachelor of Science (BS) □ Bachelor of Arts (BA) □ Bachelor of Pharmacy (BS) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. I received my last academic degree in: □ 2000 –2010 □ 1990 –1999 □ 1980 –1989 □ 1970 –1979 □ 1960 –1969 □ before 1960 □ Other (please specify): _______________ 3. My current rank as a pharmacy faculty member is the following: □ Lecturer □ Instructor □ Assistant Professor □ Associate Professor □ Professor □ Emeritus Professor □ Other (please specify): _______________ 4. My status with respect to tenure or continuous contract is: □ Nontenured (tenure track appointment) □ Nontenured (nontenure track appointment) □ Tenured □ Does Not Apply 5. I have a concurrent administrative appointment that is at the following level: □ Dean □ Associate Dean □ Assistant Dean □ Department Chair or Head □ Vice Chair or Assistant Head □ Director or Assistant Director □ None □ Other (please specify): _______________ 6. My primary faculty appointment resides in the following area: □ Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences □ Division of Pharmacology and Toxicology □ Division of Pharmacy Practice and Administration □ Other (please specify): _______________ 7. How many years have you been at this institution? □ 0 –3 years □ 4 – 6 years □ 7–10 years □ 11–14 years
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
239.e2
□ 15–18 years □ ⬎18 years 8. How many years have you been a faculty member? □ 0 –3 years □ 4 – 6 years □ 7–10 years □ 11–14 years □ 15–18 years □ ⬎18 years 9. I would classify myself as the following type of faculty member: □ Clinical faculty □ Basic Science faculty (nonclinical) □ Social Sciences (nonclinical) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. Faculty Development Information INSTRUCTIONS: Answer all questions to the best of your ability. For questions that do not pertain to you, please check the N/A column. For purposes of answering the following questions, some definitions may be helpful. ● Mentor: Roles a mentor may provide include advising, counseling, listening, nurturing, critiquing, advocating, teaching, etc. ● Formal faculty development programs: Includes other than discipline-specific Masters level degree or curricular-based certificate programs specifically in the area of education that typically take place in postsecondary institutions. ● Informal faculty development programs: Includes other than discipline-specific minicourses, continuing education programs, workshops, or seminars specifically in the area of education that are narrower. 1. FACULTY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING
I would like to see more formal faculty development programs made available to me. I would like to see more informal faculty development programs available to me. The level of faculty development activities at our School of Pharmacy is adequate. Our School of Pharmacy offers informal faculty development programs. School administration supports faculty development activities by providing financial support and or release time to attend such programming. The level of faculty development activities at our school should be increased. Our School of Pharmacy offers formal faculty development programs.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
2. RESEARCH AND SCHLORSHIP ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Career planning Overview of the promotion and tenure process Time management of faculty responsibilities (teaching, scholarship, and service) Writing winning grants for NIH, NSF, private foundations, etc.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
239.e3
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
Effective management of funded grants (post award process) Manuscript writing Presentation skills Developing and maintaining a teaching portfolio Developing a research agenda/focus Understanding the institutional review process (IBC, IRB, IACUC) Opportunities and needs for School of Pharmacy service activities Opportunities and needs for community services (school, city) How to do effective and useful service work without “burning oneself down”
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□ □ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
3. TEACHING ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Ways to evaluate effective teaching Developing learning objectives Developing course syllabi Lecturing/giving presentation/small group teaching Lecturing/giving presentation/large group teaching Planning workshops and labs Assessing educational resources (textbooks, videos, etc.) Test question construction Test item analysis Curriculum design Developing alternative instructional approaches Nontraditional assessment and evaluation methods Group-based learning Problem-based learning Ability-based learning Clinical teaching (inpatient/ outpatient precepting) Teaching using evidencebased medicine How to stimulate selfdirected learning
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□ □ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
A. Smith and K. Hardinger / Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 4 (2012) 232–239
239.e4
4. STUDENT ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Evaluating learning Managing student behavior (conflict resolution) Role of a faculty advisor The instructor–student relationship Establishing authority with students Mentoring skills
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
5. RESOURCE ISSUES “I would find (or would have found) the following faculty development topics helpful in my academic career development”:
Designing visual aids to enhance learning Computer-assisted instruction Distance learning Internet and Web page development for courseware Blackboard site development
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
Other (please specify): _______________
3. Faculty Development Resources 1. I have completed the following formal faculty development programming (check all that apply). □ Attained a Masters degree in Education □ Completed a certificate program in Education (e.g. New Faculty Teaching Scholar) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 2. I have completed an informal faculty development programming (check all that apply). □ Residency teaching certificate □ Professional Organizational teaching/research certificate (e.g., ACCP or AACP) □ Other (please specify): _______________ 3. How appealing are the following methods for obtaining and completing informal or formal faculty development programming?
Print materials Audio recording Video (e.g., Tegrity) Telephone/teleconference Computer-assisted instruction (e.g.,Webinar) E-mail Satellite video Live seminars Classroom instruction Other (please specify): _______________
Very Appealing
Appealing
Neutral
Not Appealing
Not Appealing at All
N/A
□
□
□
□
□
□