David E. Favre, Dorothe Bach and Lindsay B. Wheeler
This study aims to understand the extent to which a faculty development program that includes a week-long course design experience followed by sustained support changes new…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to understand the extent to which a faculty development program that includes a week-long course design experience followed by sustained support changes new faculty's perceptions, beliefs and teaching practices. The authors employed the teacher professional knowledge and skill (TPK&S) framework and characteristics of effective educational development interventions to drive the program development, implementation and assessment.
Design/methodology/approach
This study utilized a mixed methods approach. Data sources include pre-/mid-/post-program responses to a validated survey, pre-/post-program course syllabi analyzed using a validated rubric and pre-/post-classroom observations collected using the Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS) instrument.
Findings
Findings indicate transformative effects for participants' beliefs about their teaching and changes to their instructional practices. Significant and practical effects were observed across different portions of the program for increases in participants' self-efficacy, endorsement of a conceptual change approach toward teaching and perceptions of institutional support. Participants produced more learning-focused syllabi and many moved toward more student-centered instructional approaches in their teaching practices.
Research limitations/implications
Due to the voluntary nature of the new faculty development program, this study may have been limited by participant self-selection bias and differential sample sizes for the study's individual measures. Future research should consider designs which maximize faculty participation in measurement across all data sources.
Originality/value
This study addresses shortcomings in prior studies which utilized limited data sources to measure intervention impact and answers the call for more rigorous research to obtain a more complete picture of instructional development in higher education.