Faculty Research and Development in the Technology Disciplines

1. ISECON 2007 Pat Sendall Merrimack College Faculty Research and Development in the Technology Disciplines

2. Overview • Introduction & Study Focus • Literature Review • What is Faculty Development? • Survey Results • Conclusions

3. Introduction • The focus of this study is on the faculty research and development process and how it applies to academic technologists • Is there a double standard within the academy, discipline to discipline?

4. Introduction • Major faculty development efforts in higher education gained momentum in the 1960’s • Much of what has been written to-date on the subject was published in the 80’s & 90’s • Survey data indicates… • Perception of a double standard when it comes to the development requirements for the academic technologist • Compared to their peers across campus

5. Literature Review • “Faculty development is no longer an optional or dispensable “add-on” to the list of benefits available to faculty at universities in the United States.” (Nathan, 1994) • “…we must broaden our perspective to capture the essence of enhancing or developing scholarship in all forms.” (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994)

6. What is Faculty Development? • Faculty development, “…means different things to different people” (Watson & Grossman, 1994) • Early definition of scholarship • Engaging in original research • Today, a wider view of scholarship includes faculty development • There are still a variety of definitions • Internal organizational culture defines it

7. Why Faculty Development? • Faculty development, • Promotes improvement of the academy • Helps individuals develop themselves as contributors to the academy’s mission (Legorreta, Kelley, & Sablynski, 2006) • Designed to, • Improve faculty performance • …as scholars, advisors, academic leaders, and contributors to institutional decisions (Nelson, 1983)

8. Goal of Faculty Development • The goal of faculty development is to make college teaching more successful and more satisfying (Sikes & Barrett, 1976) • Faculty development is designed to forestall faculty obsolescence (Camblin & Steger, 2000)

9. The Faculty Development Plan • The task of developing a model FDP [faculty development plan] involves managing diversity of interests, values, and stages in the professional growth of the faculty members • A one-size-fits-all FDP is not realistic for most schools (Legorreta, 2000)

10. “Academic Technologist” Includes… • Computer Science • Computer Information Systems • Management Information Systems • Information Science • Information Technology (IT) • Computer Information Technology • IT Leadership • or those who may have shared responsibilities between and among various departments including Computer Engineering

11. Discipline Difference • Unlike most disciplines across the academy, technology disciplines are in a constant state of change • We are responsible for the same things, i.e. journal publications, but in addition… • New teaching paradigms • The latest software releases • New programming languages • New and revised textbooks

12. Different Funding Needs • Academic technologist’s development funds may include support for: • Research, workshops, seminars • Other activities that will improve the faculty person’s knowledge and professional skill set • The value added will ultimately be the student’s classroom experience

13. Case Study—Merrimack College • Mission: teaching • Faculty R&D funding • Primarily research support • Disconnect? • Funding shared across college from small budget • Technologists predominantly self taught

14. Survey • Survey sent July 2007 via email • ACM’s Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) listserv • Association of Information System’s AIS World listserv • Open for three weeks • 210 responses were collected

15. Survey Results • Demographics • 35% --15,000+ full time students • 29% --5,000 – 15,000 full time students • 17%--2,500 – 5,000 full time students • 19% --fewer than 2,500 full time students

16. Demographics

17. Courses Taught

18. Source of funding

19. Types of projects funded

20. Development with no support

21. Promotion & Standards

22. Conclusions • Faculty developmentinforms teaching • Includes research and other types of professional development • Faculty and institutional vitality are dependent on faculty development funding • The vitality of the school depends on a holistic approach to faculty development (Bland & Schmitz, 1990) • Faculty development does not come in a neat “one-size-fits-all” package • Every institution has its own unique needs, its own culture

23. Conclusions • 81% respondents--funding should be available by the institution for technical development • 37% are actually providing this type of funding • 78% required to self-educate without funding • 51% perceived that they had different professional development requirements as compared to their contemporaries from across the academy

24. Conclusions • “From the point of view of teaching and research, different types of situations require different skills and resources.” (DiLorenzo & Heppner, 1994) • The fastest areas of job growth (US Dept of Labor) • Software Engineering • Information Technology • More incentive for technologists to stay current in their fields • Provide a state of the art education for their students

25. Conclusions • “The assumption has long been that a scholar would and could easily self-educate to keep abreast of new developments and to maintain high skill levels. • To make this presumption today… is to ignore the swiftness at which knowledge and understanding are advancing.” (Camblin & Steger, 2000)

26. Recommendations • Development funds often decided upon by committees of non-technical colleagues • Educate our peers as to the importance of the diversity in the technologist’s professional development • e.g., Informal talks at lunch • Stress benefit to students • More detailed proposals • Administrative champion

27. Recommendations • In order for these types of efforts to grow, a culture change must happen on many campuses across the country • Development funds have…revitalized professors, renewed courses… • Permitting professors to study new subjects, benefiting students (Battistella, 2007)

28. Thank you! Questions?