IGE INNOVATION ABSTRACTS xe7"
AGY C aii b National Institute for Staff and Organizational Devel re
AIAN y the ga Op

a_ With support from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and Sid W. Richardson Foundation

 

 

 

FACULTY RENEWAL: A MODEL FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Community college teaching is an attractive occupation; consequently, staff turnover is low. At Humber
College, Toronto, Ontario, there are 545 full-time faculty, of whom 256 (47%) have been employed at the college
for 10 years or more. A major concern in the professional/vocational areas is that faculty who have been out of
the mainstream of their professions for too long soon become redundant. The implications of this redundancy
are the potential for: (a) students being inadequately prepared for the job market, (b) employer dissatisfaction
with graduates, and (c) the undermining of program and college credibility. In order to address the issue of
faculty relevance, an innovative professional development program was introduced in 1980, involving the faculty
of the Applied Arts Division at Humber College.

The Model

The original concept was initiated by Dean Richard Hook. His division consisted of 38 full-time faculty
teaching in 15 programs, ranging from Early Childhood Education to Arena Management. Given the variables of
a broad mix of programs, faculty of different ages and stages in their tenure at the College, and the wide vari-
ance of professional and academic backgrounds of the faculty, it was apparent that the old format of on-campus
seminars would not address the current professional needs of the staff. A unique program was required; and as
a result, the following philosophy and guidelines were articulated as a framework from which to design a pro-
fessional development plan.

The stated philosophy was to establish a mutually acceptable professional development program with each
participating full-time faculty member. The plan required the faculty member to engage in an experiential pro-
fessional development activity for a minimum of two months during a three-year period, commencing May,
1980. The objective was to provide a period of time during the working year for staff to pursue a meaningful
learning experience in a practical manner.

The guidelines were as follows:

1. May and June were preferred for this professional development activity because faculty were still working
during these months; but for the majority, teaching responsibilities finished at the end of April.

2. The plan did not require faculty to do a two-month “block” project. In other words, the two-months’
activity could be spread out over three years at the discretion of the individual.

3. The emphasis was to be on increasing the individual's level of competence in his or her own profession.

4. The plan was to allow faculty time, not only to keep abreast, but to expand their professional expertise.

5. Some flexibility was allowed in terms of individual activities. For example, faculty who had recently come
from their professions may still have been involved in the professional development program for new staff.

Implementation

Initially, a short meeting was held with the individual faculty member, and the philosophy and parameters
were explained. At this stage, any doubts or questions about the process were addressed before discussing
what the content of the individual’s plan might be. As well, the time factor was an issue to be discussed in
view of other commitments during the May/June period. These commitments by faculty varied significantly,
depending on the program. At the end of the first interview, faculty were asked to spend a few days thinking
and reflecting on identifying areas where they could upgrade themselves, learn new skills, and generally
strengthen their ability to deliver the highest quality of education within their courses.

A second interview was then arranged to crystalize the notions of what they perceived to be appropriate
learnings. The next step in the process was to decide which learnings were priorities and in what order they
should be approached. When the teacher was quite clear in his mind what he wanted to do and when he
wanted to do it, a learning contract was drawn. The learning contract stated the teacher’s name and program, a
list of learning objectives, the method of achieving those objectives, and estimated target dates or time frame
required. After the contract was typed, it was given to the faculty member to read and change, if he wished.
Provided everything was satisfactory, he would sign the contract; then his respective supervisor (Chairman or
Senior Program Coordinator) would sign, and each would keep a copy. Some teachers decided to do eight
weeks’ renewal during the first year; and others decided to spread the time out, making a short-term commit-

 

 

Aco Community College Leadership Program, The University of Texas at Austin, EDB 348, Austin, Texas 78712