Institutional+factors+in+faculty+development

**Locating faculty development for engagement: A study of institutional factors** Emily Donnelli, Associate Professor and Faculty Director of Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Park University [emily.donnelli@park.edu] Melissa Mace, Executive Director, Missouri Campus Compact [melissamace@missouristate.edu] **Keywords:** Faculty development, institutional factors**,** location(s) of faculty development**,** “decision points” **Track:** Faculty roles and professional development **Format:** Team presentation **Summary:** To better understand the ways that faculty development for engagement is enabled and constrained by institutional context, this presentation reports on the preliminary results of a small-scale, mixed-method research study of the 36 institutional members of Missouri Campus Compact. The study was designed to identify the institutional factors that help determine where faculty development for engagement resides, the role of institutional location in controlling who drives and represents faculty engagement, and the resulting nature of faculty development initiatives and institutional rewards. The presenters discuss how faculty development for engagement can be enhanced through relocating and/or pluralizing the locations for this work on their campuses. The presenters’ research considers the array of features that contribute to an institution’s Carnegie basic classification as well as the influence of the institution’s particular history with service-learning and community engagement initiatives. To these ends, survey and interviews were utilized as primary methods of inquiry. The survey solicited information about the institutional locations from which support for community-engaged teaching/research is provided; the types of support offered; classifications of the personnel responsible for promoting this work; and the institutional rewards for engaged faculty. The researchers also conducted interviews with personnel from five of the surveyed institutions, creating institutional profiles that represent institutions of varying size and classifications across Missouri. To frame and analyze their findings, the researchers call upon issues and trends identified within the last three decades of faculty development in higher education (Sorcinelli et al., 2006) to determine parallels with the growth of faculty development specific to engagement. Gillespie and Robertson’s (2010) “decision points” for devising faculty development programs are applied to analyze the potential contributions of the study for aiding decisions about faculty development for engagement. **References:** Gillespie, K. J., & Robertson, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). //A guide to faculty development//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. O’Meara, K., Saltmarsh, J., Knepler, E., & Ward, E. (2010, Oct.). Faculty development for engagement: The extent, shape, and outcomes of the field. Panel presentation at the International Association for Research on Service-Learning and Community Engagement annual conference, Indianapolis, Indiana. 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//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.  Please click here to access a PDF of this page: <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: left;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: left;">

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: left;">Please share thoughts and questions about this session here: <span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: left;">