Beyond faculty development: How centers for teaching and learning can be laboratories for learning

Lieberman, Devorah

doi:10.1002/he.189

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…McKinney (2002), alternatively, uses synthesis and reflection to probe the relationship between instructional development, which she considers one component of more general faculty development, and teaching and learning. Both types of "critical" approaches to faculty development posit faculty development initiatives as if they were, as Lieberman (2005) advocates, laboratories for learning organizations intent on a culture of self-examination, evidence, and improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

21: Toward a Scholarship of Faculty Development

Potter

2011

To Improve the Academy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter critically examines the scholarship of faculty development. Using a typology adapted from one developed to understand the scholarship of teaching and learning, I reflect on the primary currents identifiable in the literature. Much of what is published in the field of faculty development consists of descriptions of the development and assessment of particular programs. One approach that is largely missing is the metastudy or review of prior studies that can serve to preserve the findings of scholar-practitioners.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

21: Toward a Scholarship of Faculty Development

Potter

2011

To Improve the Academy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more recent years, as shared governance has begun to devolve on many campuses, there has been a call for faculty development programs to assume the role of training faculty leaders (Lieberman 2005;Wergin 2007). However, a recent book by Sorcinelli et al (2006) that surveyed the entire field of faculty developers found that none of the centers' directors believed faculty leadership development was a goal for their center.…”

Section: Faculty Development Programsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Supporting Faculty Grassroots Leadership

Kezar

Lester

2009

Res High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various factors are making faculty leadership challenging including the rise in part-time and non-tenure-track faculty, the increasing pressure to publish and teach more courses and adopt new technologies and pedagogies, increasing standards for tenure and promotion, ascension of academic capitalism, and heavy service roles for women and people of color. This article focuses on describing actions taken by institutional agents and aspects of campus environments which are supportive of grassroots faculty leadership. While there are many conditions which inhibit faculty leadership (i.e., part-time and contingent faculty trends, rising publication standards, etc.), our study demonstrated certain campus conditions or characteristics can overcome the forces of change including counting leadership as service, creating campus networks, addressing dysfunctional department dynamics, fostering role models, supporting faculty who question or challenge decisions, ensuring flexibility and autonomy, and altering contingent faculty contracts to include service and leadership.

show abstract

“…Researchers and practitioners that have explored the connection between CTLs and faculty development (Keig, ; Lieberman, ) have highlighted the types of resources and support available to early career faculty members to support their transition into their new roles (Fayne & Ortquist‐Ahrens, ); CTLs as a source for formal and informal support for faculty members across career stages (Chism, Lees, & Evenbeck, ; Sorcinelli, ); and as a means of promoting best practices in faculty development in LACs regionally and nationally (Persellin & Goodrick, ).…”

Section: Liberal Arts Collegesmentioning

confidence: 99%