Faculty development in SACS-accredited community colleges.

Community college leaders have historically placed importance on faculty development for a number of reasons. First, community colleges have struggled with the changing demographics that have brought them an increasingly nontraditional student body. Faculty prepared by traditional graduate programs are often unprepared for the pedagogical challenges of the open door institution (Rafkin, 2000), challenges that demand different approaches to teaching and learning (Amey, 1999; Cross, 1986). Consequently, community colleges have found it necessary to implement faculty development activities to assist faculty in developing the skills and strategies necessary to provide effective instruction (Burnstad, 1994; Van Ast, 1999). However, despite devoting considerable resources to this effort, for the most part, faculty development programs have failed to inspire lasting pedagogical changes among faculty (Brawer, 1990; Caffey, 1979; Gamble, 1988; Maxwell & Kazlauskas, 1992; Miller & Ratcliff, 1986; Murray, 1988, 1995, 1999, 2000; Richardson & Moore, 1987; Schuster, 1990).

With the rapid expansion of community colleges in the late 1960s came greater access to higher education for a larger proportion of the population. With the expansion of access, there has been a sharp increase in nontraditional and underprepared students entering college. Amey (1999) notes that in today's community colleges, "women now outnumber men, ... a greater proportion of students of color and first generation college attendees begin their postsecondary education at community colleges than at four-year colleges, that the average age of students is substantially higher at community colleges than four-year institutions, and over half of the students enrolled at community colleges attend on a part-time basis" (p. 41). Amey (1999) goes on to say that "given the change in student clientele, it is increasingly clear that traditional approaches to teaching and learning are inappropriate for many, if not most, of these students" (p. 41).

Effective learning and teaching in today's community college classrooms is dependent on "the flexibility of a college instructor's teaching repertoire, and his or her readiness to draw on a range of teaching styles for a variety of ends ..." (Adams, 1992, p. 15). Cross (1990) cogently argues that, "if the goal of the 1980's reforms is the improvement of students' learning, then how something is taught is every bit as important as what is taught" (p. 16). However, very few traditionally trained professors were provided with a repertoire of teaching skills during their graduate education (Amey, 1999; Heppner, 1994; Meyers, Reid, & Quina, 1988). Thus, faculty development should be a means for community colleges to provide faculty with the tools necessary for meeting the learning needs of the students entering through the open door.

A second reason for faculty development programs is their potential to reestablish enthusiasm in middle and late career faculty. Over the last three decades, the increase in underprepared students, coupled with what some faculty believe is administrative pressure to lower standards, has had a demoralizing effect on faculty (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Moreover, for economic reasons many community colleges have reduced the number of elective courses they offer. The monotony of teaching the same courses using the same teaching techniques year after year often results in intellectual and psychological stagnation (Harnish & Creamer, 1985, 1986; Menges, 1984) and a diminished interest in finding ways to improve learning and teaching. These working conditions taken together often result in what Cohen and Brawer (1996) have termed "psychic retirement." "Institutions retrench, work becomes routine, horizons darken. Prospects are dominated by sameness and decline rather than by novelty and expansion. Many faculty respond with cynicism, and they retreat" (Menges, 1984, p. 182). Faculty development programs can provide an antidote to stagnation and burnout by providing faculty with innovative and challenging ways to keep their teaching fresh.

A third reason for faculty development is the demand for curricula reforms that will better assist students for success in further studies or in the workplace. Critics from both inside and outside the academy are calling for sweeping curricula reforms that will produce students with greater multicultural awareness, critical thinking, problem solving, and communication skills. Accomplishing these curricula reforms requires a "retooling" of traditionally educated faculty (i.e. it requires providing faculty with the opportunity to develop new pedagogical skills). The rapidly expanding role of technology in learning and teaching strategies also requires faculty development (Amey, 1999; Burnstad, 1994; Foote, 1996). Faculty will need to be provided avenues to explore and integrate the newest technologies into their courses.

Despite the clear and evident rationale for the existence of faculty development programs, a number of researchers have concluded that faculty development programs have minimal long-term effects and are often resented by faculty (Caffey, 1979; Murray, 1999). The reasons for the minimal impact of faculty development are not easily discernible despite the existence of a large volume of literature dealing with faculty development. Some researchers have suggested that lack of clear institutional goals and outcomes for faculty development, a missing long-term administrative commitment to faculty development, and a failure to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs are some of the reasons for the disappointing results from faculty development efforts (Burnstad, 1994; Hammons, Wallace-Smith, & Watts, 1978; Murray, 1999; Richardson & Moore, 1987; Sydow, 2000). "Programs goals are vague. Faculty development is loosely defined and even more loosely evaluated. It is often unclear how the specific seminars, workshops, or activities actually improve teaching or the curriculum. Faculty activities need to be more closely tied to institutional goals" (Tierney, Ahem, & Kidwell, 1996, p. 38).

Although scholars have concluded that faculty development in community colleges is lacking, there is little reported evidence that faculty development programs are evaluated in any meaningful way (Burnstad, 1994; Maxwell & Kazlauskas, 1992; Richardson & Moore, 1987; Sydow, 2000; Tierney et al., 1996). Therefore, beliefs about the ineffectiveness of faculty programs are not usually based on empirical research; rather such beliefs are often based on anecdotal evidence of faculty and administrators' perceptions of the effectiveness of faculty development activities. The meager amount of research literature that does attempt to assess the effectiveness of faculty development efforts is discouraging. For example, several researchers have attempted to evaluate effectiveness by gauging the number of faculty that voluntarily participate. Such studies reveal little, if anything, regarding the impact of faculty development efforts on teaching and learning (Caffey, 1979; Maxwell & Kazlauskas, 1992; Miller & Ratcliff, 1986).

One reason that it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of faculty development programs seems to be because most programs lack specifically defined outcomes. There is evidence that faculty development activities compatible with the institutional mission can be highly effective (Tierney et al., 1996). Nonetheless, "there is little evidence that [faculty development] programs are being used as a major instrument for institutional change and improvement that is linked to the accomplishment of college goals and the establishment of accountability" (Richardson & Moore, 1987, p. 29). Faculty development programs tend to be collections of disparate activities lumped under one umbrella for administrative expediency rather than an explicit plan intended to further the institutional mission (Jennings, Barlar, & Bartling, 1991; Murray, 1988, 1995, 1999, 2000; Richardson & Moore, 1987).

The failure of faculty development efforts to produce discernable and lasting changes coupled with the increasing calls for accountability and dwindling resources demand a new approach to faculty development. "The new fiscal conditions require a different kind of faculty development, breaking from the past when teaching workshops, seminars, and consultation were all aimed at helping the faculty member become better at what he or she chose. The new faculty development approach asks each individual to identify an individualized contribution to the overall mission" (Ferren, 1997, p. 443). Campus leaders will need "to show that they really do bring about improvement of instruction. In order to do so, faculty development programs must develop a coherent and consistent framework for evaluating activities" (Sell & Lounsberry, 1997, p. 211).

Methodology

The objective of this study was to determine if and how community colleges evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of faculty development activities. In the fall of 2000, a stamped, self-addressed envelope and an instrument listing the various activities that fall under the rubric of faculty development were mailed to the chief academic officers (CAOs) of all 311 two-year colleges accredited by Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The CAOs were asked to have the person responsible for faculty development on their campus complete the survey. The respondents were asked to select from a list of typical faculty development activities used at their college. Next, they were asked about the usefulness of each activity conducted at their institution on a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. They were then asked if they evaluated the effectiveness of the activity. If they did evaluate the effectiveness of the activity, they were asked to identify the means used to evaluate the effectiveness of each activity using the following rubric: 1) verbal feedback; 2) open-ended written statements; 3) questionnaire; 4) activity pretest, posttest; 5) testing of student outcomes; 6) formal written reports; 7) classroom observation; and 8) other.

Three weeks after the initial mailing, nonrespondents were mailed a second copy of the instrument. One month after the second mailing nonrespondents were mailed a third copy of the instrument. This produced 236 (75.9%) usable returns.

Results

All 236 of the responding community colleges reported that they used some form of faculty development. Table 1 provides a list of activities and the frequency of use.

Financial support for attending professional conferences was the only faculty development activity used by all the responding community colleges. Three other activities were used by 90% or more of the responding institutions. All four of these activities are traditional activities that have been used by community colleges (and many senior colleges) since the 1970s (Centra, 1975; Gaff, 1975; Hammons et al., 1978). Seven other faculty development activities were used by less than 90% but more than 50% of the community colleges. Once again, a perusal of these seven activities reveals that these are from the same menu of activities that community colleges have been using since the 1970s. Twelve other faculty development activities were used by less than 50% but more than 25% of the community colleges. With the possible exception of e-mail discussion groups, these activities have also been part of the traditional menu of opportunities offered to faculty since the 1970s. Six activities were offered by less than 25% of the 236 SACS community colleges that responded. Since the faculty development literature first mentions teaching portfolios in the 1990s, they appear to be a relatively recent addition to the community college faculty development menu.

The researcher was interested in determining if the respondents' perceptions of effectiveness were grounded in empirical data or were "intuitive hunches" based on institutional traditions. The persons responsible for planning and conducting faculty development activities were asked to give their personal perception of the effectiveness of each activity on a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. If respondents reported that the activities were perceived to be effective, but (in a later section of the survey) reported that they were not evaluated, it would suggest that these community colleges were relying more on tradition than evidence in designing faculty development programs.

Table 2 provides the results. Only financial support for attending professional conferences received a perceived effectiveness rating of excellent or good by more than 90% of the respondents using the activity. The perceived effectiveness of seven (24.1%) activities was rated excellent or good by between 75% and 89% of the 236 the respondents using the activity. Twenty-one (72.4%) of the activities received perceived effectiveness ratings of excellent or good by between 50% and 74% of the respondents using the activity.

The respondents were then asked if they formally evaluated faculty development activities. Table 3 demonstrates that although community college leaders believe that faculty development activities are effective, this belief is rarely based on the results of formal evaluation. Only 8 (27.6%) of the faculty development activities used at these community colleges were formally evaluated by 75% or more of the institutions. Fifteen (51.7%) faculty development activities are formally evaluated by 50% to 74% of the institutions and 6 (20.7%) are formally evaluated by less than 50% of the 236 colleges.

Table 4 shows that very few of the activities campus leaders believe are effective were formally evaluated by the institution. Of the 10 faculty development activities perceived by respondents (see Table 2) to be the most useful, only 4 were formally evaluated by 70% or more of the 236 colleges. Moreover, the activity perceived to be the most useful was evaluated by only 70.3% of the institutions. Of the 10 most frequently evaluated activities, 4 were perceived by respondents (see table 2) to be among the least effective--ranking 21st, 28th, 22nd, and 26th out of 29 in perceived effectiveness. Table 5 shows that formal evaluation of faculty development activities also appears to be conducted in relatively subjective ways that fail to assess the impact on the classroom.

Table 5 demonstrates that, by far, the most common means of evaluating faculty development activities was verbal feedback from the participants. Open-ended written statements and questionnaires completed by faculty participants were also often used to evaluate faculty development activities. A modest number of colleges require formal written reports from faculty participants. Only a handful of institutions used either testing of student outcomes or classroom observation. Almost no community colleges used pretesting and posttesting of faculty participants.

In order to determine which techniques were used most often to evaluate the efficacy of faculty development activities, one can use a method often used to evaluate the usefulness of web sites. Web sites are often evaluated by the number of "hits" they receive (i.e. the number of persons visiting the site) in the belief that the more often a web site is visited, the more effective that site is in accomplishing its purpose. If analogously we count the number of times or hits a particular evaluation method was checked by the respondents, we can determine which techniques are most frequently used to evaluate faculty development activities. In theory, the number of hits serves as a proxy for the importance placed on a particular evaluation technique. If some evaluation techniques received a greater number of hits than others, we can infer these evaluation techniques may be more valued, and the results are more likely to influence future faculty development programming. Verbal feedback received 1047 hits followed by 639 for formal written reports, 613 for questionnaires, and 429 open-ended statements. These evaluation techniques rely on the perceptions of faculty participants. Classroom observation received 147 hits, and testing of student outcomes received 37 hits. Both techniques can be used to assess the actual impact on students. Pretest and posttests can be used to evaluate participants' learning. This method received 30 hits.

Discussion and Implications

When we review the list of faculty development activities used by community colleges, we see little change since the 1970s in types of activites used or the delivery formats. Faculty development is mostly confined to sabbatical leaves, support to attend discipline-based conferences, in-service workshops, and release time or grants to support teaching innovations. The 11 faculty development activities most commonly used at the 236 responding institutions are the same activities that have been utilized since the 1970s. Advances in technology led a few colleges (30.1%) to use e-mail to generate discussions of teaching, and a few colleges (13.6%) are experimenting with teaching portfolios. However, there is little else that is innovative despite the abundant evidence of the inefficacy of a traditional approach to faculty development (Brawer, 1990; Maxwell & Kazlauskas, 1992; Murray, 1988, 1995, 199, 2000; Richardson & Moore, 1987; Spear, Seymour, & McGrath, 1992; Tierney et al., 1996).

When we looked closely at the results of this and other research, we noticed that many faculty development programs lack focused goals and objectives and are often little more than menus of loosely connected efforts (Alfano, 1993; Jennings et al., 1991; Murray, 1999; Tierney et al., 1996). Although a well formed faculty development plan recognizes that many diverse activities are needed over a long period of time, it also recognizes that these activities must be united around a common institutional mission--the systematic, demonstrable, and highly regarded improvement of teaching (Tierney et al., 1996). Although there is a dearth of empirical studies on the effectiveness of faculty development, one study did demonstrate that community colleges that link faculty development and institutional goals tend to be more effective on various measures of student outcomes. "Professional development opportunities for faculty members in higher-performing insitutions were linked in systematic ways to institutional priorities. In several lower-performing districts, faculty had no clear sense of priorities" (Richardson & Wolferton, 1994, p. 46).

When the respondents were asked the perception of the effectiveness of the faculty development activities employed at their institutions, the respondents were somewhat lukewarm. Although all activities found some favor among the respondents, in effect, only 8 of 29 activities received a strong endorsement. Given that the respondents reported that faculty development activities are often not evaluated, the perception of effectiveness appears to be based more upon intuition and past practices than upon empirical data.

Despite the lack of evidence, the respondents expressed confidence that faculty development efforts are effective. Perhaps this belief can be explained by the methods used to evaluate faculty development outcomes. Of the seven assessment techniques used by responding community colleges, four involved the perceptions of faculty participants--verbal feedback, open-ended written statements, questionnaires, and formal written reports. A fifth evaluation technique, pretesting and posttesting, can assess what the faculty participants learned in a session; however, it cannot tell us if faculty will use the new knowledge in the classroom. Only testing of student outcomes and classroom observation have the possibility of assessing the actual impact of faculty development activities on student learning outcomes. Yet these evaluation methods are rarely used and are often vehemently opposed by faculty. Table 5 demonstrates that methods relying on perceptions of faculty participants are by far the most used evaluation tools.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The community colleges in this study clearly relied on traditional approaches to faculty development. Moreover, their efforts tended to be unconnected to any other institutional plan to improve institutional performance. Furthermore, the colleges tended to avoid evaluating faculty development efforts in ways that might assist them in developing a coherent faculty development strategic plan that could contribute in a meaningful way to overall institutional improvement.

Increasing calls for accountability at a time of shrinking resources require community colleges to demonstrate that they use their resources to advance the mission of the institutions. Therefore community colleges should design faculty development programs that have clear and distinct goals intended to improve learning and teaching. In other words, community colleges must tie faculty development to the mission of the community college.

Table 1

Activities Used
                                      Number using
Activity                                activity    Percent

Financial support for attending            236         100%
professional conferences

Workshops on campus by experts             222        94.1%

Workshops by own faculty                   220        93.2%

Orientation for new faculty                215        91.1%

Tuition at home institution                181        76.7%

Release time to work on projects to        181        76.7%
improve teaching

Financials support for presenting          163        69.1%
papers at conferences

Reimburse full or partial tuition          157        66.5%
for faculty taking courses at other
colleges and universities

Minigrants for teaching                    143        60.6%
improvement

Personalized (individualized)              143        60.6%
development plan (growth contract)

Opportunity to work in industry for        131        55.5%
a period of time

Sponsored visits to other campuses         117        49.6%

Peer mentoring                             114       48.3%

Sabbatical leave                           102        43.2%

Brown bag sharing sessions                  91        38.6%

Resource center for teaching by             89        37.7%
colleagues

Observation and critique of                 86        36.4%
teaching by colleagues

Peer observation                            82        34.7%

Individual teaching consultations or        78        33.1%
counseling

Faculty retreats                            76        32.2%

E-mail discussion groups (listservs)        71        30.1%

Offer incentives to present papers          69        29.2%
at conferences or to publish

Collaborative peer review                   64        27.1%

Summer institutes                           53        22.5%

Faculty book discussions related to         37        15.7%
teaching

Teaching newsletter                         34        14.4%

Teaching portfolios                         32        13.6%

Faculty exchange program with               30        12.7%
other colleges

Microteaching sessions                      18         7.6%
Table 2

Perceived Usefulness

Activity

Financial support for attending professional conferences

Workshops on campus by experts

Workshops by own faculty

Reimburse full or partial tuition for faculty taking courses at other
colleges and universities

Release time to work on projects to improve teaching

Offer incentives to present papers at conferences or to publish

Tuition at home institution

Faculty book discussions related to teaching

Brown bag sharing sessions

Individual teaching consultations or counseling

Resource center for teaching effectiveness

Summer institutes

Minigrants for teaching improvement

Microteaching sessions

Peer mentoring

Teaching newsletter

Orientation for new faculty

Peer observation.

Financial support for presenting papers at conferences

Sabbatical leave

Faculty retreats

Observation and critique of teaching by colleagues

Sponsored visits to other campuses

Opportunity to work in industry for a period of time

Collaborative peer review

Teaching portfolios

E-mail discussion groups (listservs)

Personalized (individualized) development plan (growth contract)

Faculty exchange program with other colleges
Table 3

Percent Evaluating

                                                          %
Activity                      # using   # evaluating  evaluating
                              activity    activity     activity

Faculty retreats                    76       67         88.16

Workshops by own faculty           220      178         80.90

Workshops (individualized)         143      115         80.42
development plan (growth
contract)

Observation and critique            86       69         80.23
of teaching by colleagues

Release time to work on            181      143         79.00
projects to improve teaching

Teaching portfolios                 32       25         78.13

Minigrants for teaching            143      108         75.52
improvement

Summer institutes                   53       39         73.58

Microteaching sessions              18       13         72.22

Individual teaching                 78       55         70.51
consultations or counseling

Financial support for              236      166         70.34
attending professional
conferences

Offer incentives to present         69       47         68.12
papers at conferences or to
publish

Orientation for new faculty        215      146         67.91

Collaborative peer review           64       40         62.50

Peer mentoring                     114       70         61.40

Resource center for                 89       54         60.67
teaching effectiveness

Faculty exchange                    30       18         60.00
program with other
colleges

Sabbatical leave                   102       61         59.80

Opportunity to work in             131       78         59.54
industry for a period of
time

Peer observation                    82       48         58.54

Reimburse full or partial          157       84         53.50
tuition for faculty taking
courses at other colleges
& universities

Sponsored visits to other          117       61         52.14
campuses

Brown bag sharing                   91       45         49.45
sessions

Financial support for              163       77         47.24
presenting papers at
conferences

Faculty book discussions            37       17         45.95
related to teaching

Teaching newsletter                 34       14         41.18

Tuition at home                    181       64         35.36
institution

E-mail discussion groups            71       14         19.72
(listservs)
Table 5

Evaluation Methods

                 Verbal  Open-ended  Question-  Formal   Activity
Activity         feed-    written      naire    written  pretest,
                  back   statement              reports  posttest

Financial
support for
attending         112        40         22        51        2
professional
conferences

Workshops
on campus          81        45         114       23        3
by experts

Workshops
by own             83        38         114       17        3
faculty

Sabbatical
leave              22        11          1        42        0

Tuition at
home               28        4           6        10        1
institution

Release time
to work on
projects to        57        24         14        70        2
improve
teaching

Resource
center for
teaching           24        9          29        17        3
effectiveness

Minigrants
for teaching       33        27         21        76        0
improvement

Reimburse
full or partial
tuition for
faculty
taking             32        11          6        21        0
courses at
other
colleges &
universities

Peer
mentoring          45        10         13        14        1

Collaborative
peer review        21        10         11        14        3

Peer
observation        17        9          10        14        1

Opportunity
to work in
industry for a     34        20         11        44        1
period of
time

Faculty
exchange
program with       12        4           2         7        1
other
colleges

Offer
incentives         27        5           3        12        0

                 Testing of   Classroom    Other
Activity          student    observations
                  outcomes

Financial
support for
attending            1            1         12
professional
conferences

Workshops
on campus            1            2          8
by experts

Workshops
by own               0            4          9
faculty

Sabbatical
leave                0            1          5

Tuition at
home                 7            3         17
institution

Release time
to work on
projects to          10           19        26
improve
teaching

Resource
center for
teaching             3            10         2
effectiveness

Minigrants
for teaching         4            6          9
improvement

Reimburse
full or partial
tuition for
faculty
taking               4            5         34
courses at
other
colleges &
universities

Peer
mentoring            0            5          5

Collaborative
peer review          0            3          3

Peer
observation          0            12         3

Opportunity
to work in
industry for a       1            9          8
period of
time

Faculty
exchange
program with         0            1          0
other
colleges

Offer
incentives           0            0          3

References

Adams, M. (1992). Cultural inclusion in the American college classroom. In N. V. N. Chism & L. L. B. (Eds.), Teaching for diversity, 49, 5-17. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Alfano, K. (1993). Recent strategies for faculty and staff development. Community College Review, 21, 68-77.

Amey, M. J. (1999). Faculty development: Looking towards the 21st century. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 7(1), 39-48.

Brawer, F. B. (1990). Faculty development: The literature: An ERIC review. Community College Review, 18, 51-56.

Burnstad, H. M. (1994). Management of human resources in the community college. In G. A. Baker (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management (pp. 386-395). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Caffey, D. L. (1979). Full-time faculty on faculty development: Their perceptions of what is and what should be. Community/Junior College Research Quarterly, 3, 311-323.

Centra, J. A. (1975). Faculty development practices in U.S. colleges and universities. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.

Clark, S. M., Corcoran, M. E., & Lewis, D. R. (1986). The case for an institutional perspective on faculty development. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 176-195.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. (1986, March). Taking teaching seriously. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Higher Education, Washington, DC.

Ferren, A. S. (1997). Achieving effectiveness and efficiency. In J. G. Gaff & J. L. Ratcliff & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Foote, E. (1996). ERIC review: Faculty development in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20(1), 89-93.

Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal: Advances in faculty instructional and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gamble, J. K. (1988). What is this thing called faculty development? Political Science Teacher, 1 (1), 1 & 10.

Hammons, J., Wallace-Smith, T. H., & Watts, G. (1978). Staff development in the community college: A handbook. Topical Paper no. 66. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges.

Harnish, D., & Creamer, D. G. (1985-86). Faculty stagnation and diminished job involvement. Community College Review, 13, 33-39.

Heppner, M. J. (1994). A empirical investigation of the effects of a teaching practicum on prospective faculty. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 500-507.

Jennings, C. A., Barlar, A. D., & Bartling, C. A. (1991). Trends in college and university faculty development programs. Journal of Staff, Program, & Organization Development, 9, 147-154.

Maxwell, W. E., & Kazlauskas, E. J. (1992). Which faculty development methods really work in community colleges? A review of the research. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 16, 351-360.

Menges, R. J. (1984). Career-span faculty development. College Teaching, 33(4), 181-184.

Meyers, S. A., Reid, P. T., & Quina, K. (1988). Ready or not, here we come: Preparing psychology graduate students for academic careers. Teaching Psychology, 25(2), 124-125.

Miller, D. J., & Ratcliff, J. L. (1986). Analysis of professional activities of Iowa community college faculty. Community/Junior College Journal, 10, 317-343.

Murray, J. P. (1988). Faculty development in New York two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22, 53-66.

Murray, J. P. (1995). Faculty (mis)development in Ohio two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 549-563.

Murray, J. P. (1999). Faculty development in a national sample of community colleges. Community College Review, 27(3), 47-64.

Murray, J. P. (2000). Faculty development in Texas two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(4), 251-267.

Rafkin, T. (2000). Public Community College Faculty (Issue Paper No. 4): American Association of Community Colleges.

Richardson, R., & Moore, W. (1987). Faculty development and evaluation in Texas community colleges. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 11, 19-32.

Schuster, J. H. (1990). The need for fresh approaches to faculty renewal. In J. H.

Schuster & D. W. Wheeler & Associates (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers: Strategies for development and renewal (pp. 3-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass:.

Sell, R. G., & Lounsberry, B. (1997). Supporting curriculum development. In J. G. Gaff & J. L. Ratcliff & Associates (Eds.) (need pg # here), Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spear, M. B., Seymour, E., & McGrath, D. (1992). The new problem of staff development. In K. Kroll (Ed.), Maintaining faculty excellence, 79, 21-28. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sydow, D. (2000). Long-term investment in professional development: Real dividends in teaching and learning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 383-397.

Tierney, W. G., Ahern, B., & Kidwell, C. S. (1996). Enhancing faculty development at tribal colleges. Tribal College Journal, 36-39.

Van Ast, J. (1999). Community college faculty: Making the paradigm shift. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23, 559-579.

John P. Murray is an associate professor in the higher education department at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. [e-mail]