|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I NEVER heard the term faculty development when I was a graduate student or when I was first teaching in college. Neither the term nor the concept was ever mentioned. Graduate studies in literature were supposed to give you all the development you needed to take your place in a college department, and once there you could either sink or swim. Both the term and the concept of teacher development were reserved for the precollege teachers, who were rarely referred to as “faculty.” An informal and admittedly unscientific survey of professional journals confirmed my suspicion that the term entered the college jargon in the late seventies, and its application to college professors slowly grew during the next decade. The cultural changes of the sixties, coupled with a national recession, had a profound impact on American colleges in the seventies and brought forth a period of intense questioning and criticism of our entire higher education system that continued through the eighties and is still not resolved.
Faculty development seems to be the buzzword of the nineties. At almost every professional meeting and in the innumerable articles and books concerned with the careers of college and university professors, references to the importance of faculty development abound, and suggestions are offered on various aspects of this broad topic. Much of this advice is excellent, and it is possible to cull recommendations from the extensive literature on the subject and apply them in one's own institution. To do that, though, one has to wade through a great deal of repetitive material and pick and choose carefully, for what may work in one setting is simply unacceptable in another. I think I can safely affirm that we have all participated in this type of self-propelled faculty development.
Yet that is not the meaning currently associated with the term. As used today, the term includes the notion that the development of new expertise in the discipline represented by the department, be it self-propelled by a current faculty member or brought in by a new hire, affects the entire unit. To be effective it must be integrated into the group and become part of the mandate of the entire department. This shift in the meaning of the term is based on the belief that the faculty, however distinguished, cannot rest on its laurels and do what it has always done. It must change and adapt to new circumstances. Like the world itself, the university is in constant flux, and the faculty must keep up with the flow. Thus when referring to faculty development, we are speaking no longer about the individual but about the group. The concept deals with group dynamics, to which each individual contributes a part. At its core lies the conviction that the success of the group is dependent on ensuring that the potential of each of its members is realized. It requires a group ethos based on enlightened self-interest. And a group needs a leader, who must have a plan for creating an ambience leading to such a development. This is the single requirement on which there is unanimous agreement in all the literature on the subject. Given our higher education structure, that logical leader is the chair. And probably because we have all read some of the writings on the topic and found them useful, we have accepted the charge and have become committed to the concept; at least we say so. But what do we mean? Or, more specifically, what does the concept mean when applied in our department?
Before we can even attempt to answer this question, we have to face the realities of the departmental organization and the university context in which we operate. Can the verb to develop be used in connection without our senior faculty members, some of whom may have long preceded us in the department and may be quite irritated by any attempt on our part to change the status quo? How realistic is it to expect that tenured assistant and associate professors, who need the support of their senior colleagues for promotion, would side with us? At first glance, the untenured members of the department seem to be the most likely candidates for faculty development. But in the event of opposition to our plans, aren't we jeopardizing their chances for tenure? What about relations with other departments? Universities are noticeably slow in accepting change. Individual professors may embrace new ideas enthusiastically, but the system is hard to move. How will it react to a change of direction in our departments, especially if our efforts meet with some opposition? How much can we count on the allies we may have in the administration? A dean or provost whose endorsement helped us get started may move on to another institution, and the succeeding administrator may well withhold support. Indeed, faculty members and administrators are quite capable of offering lip service to the concept of faculty development and then sabotaging it. Given all these considerations, it is not surprising that we proclaim our adherence to the concept yet hesitate to propose a full-fledged plan for faculty development for our own department. Of course we offer suggestions to respond to particular crises. We take small steps, one at a time. And, little by little, we do make changes, and some of these changes work out and are adopted by the group.
I am convinced that such measures no longer suffice. A department of foreign languages and literatures cannot simply continue to follow what worked well in the past. Our students are different, our colleges and universities have changed, as have our expectations of ourselves and of our studies. In all likelihood we will soon be faced with several retirements occurring closely together. It is our responsibility to prepare our junior faculty for succession, and we must make sure that we hire with knowledgeable projections of our future needs. We can no longer afford to put Band-Aids on trouble spots and deal piecemeal with new situations, We must have an overall strategy that takes into account our university's mandate and plans for the future. If we want our discipline to count in the education of our student body and if we want our department to carry weight in the politics of our institution, we have to work as a group and do everything we can to encourage and support our departmental colleagues' effectiveness and chances for success. It is in the interest of the entire group to push its individual members as far as they can go. An active and involved department in which members are not afraid to try new things and are ready to make an extra effort because they know that they can count on their colleagues soon gains visibility in a college and attracts students. Successful faculty development requires this group mentality.
Far be it from me to claim that is possible for a foreign language department to reach unanimity on this matter. But the majority of its members must be willing to take a hard look at their strengths and weaknesses, to identify new needs and the options they have in responding to them, and to recognize that they may have to acquire additional knowledge and techniques to meet their expanding responsibilities.
Inducing faculty members to make a realistic appraisal of the status quo and then to accept the necessity for change requires intensive persuasive efforts by the chair. Faculty development cannot be done haphazardly, nor will it be successful if the chair just charges ahead without general consultation. The process has a greater chance for success when it is accompanied by a preliminary plan that makes sense to the majority of the department. The original impetus for that plan need not come from the chair. It may originate with one colleague or several. Indeed, the wise chair encourages such initiatives and listens to suggestions and advice. But the chair's full endorsement of the preliminary project is required before it can be brought to the whole department, for he or she will have to defend it within and beyond the department.
A broad outline with clearly indicated immediate and long-term goals should then be submitted by the chair to the entire membership and followed by extensive discussions. Faculty involvement in fleshing out the plan is crucial and so is the chair's vigilance in making sure that everyone feels free to express an opinion. Rational discussion of the implications of the recommendations for change is absolutely essential, as is the creation of a nonthreatening atmosphere. The chair's task is to convince the faculty that change does not mean disparagement of current and past practices. This requires enormous patience and tact on the part of the chair, whose leadership qualities are bound to be sorely tested but who has to keep the discussion on course while advancing convincing arguments.
Obviously the type and extent of the projected faculty development varies according to the situation and needs of each department. But some general remarks can be made about the areas in which faculty development is likely to occur.
The first is the curriculum. The department has to ask itself whether its curriculum meets the language, literary, and cultural needs of today. Is there an aspect of contemporary life that was never a focus of university study but that has gained importance and should now be included? Should the department offer francophone studies? or translation? or contemporary Latin American civilization? courses in literary theory? Does the faculty want to offer such courses? It soon becomes apparent that priorities must be established. One cannot do everything at once, even if each item has eloquent partisans. Heated discussion no doubt takes time, but the group will eventually settle on one area needing immediate attention and will then consider how to fill that gap.
That may entail bringing in a specialist in that new area or retraining a current member, or members, of the faculty. Should retraining be deemed more practical, a way must be found to support it. Such support may involve released time, or a national or community grant, a summer stipend, or even a promise of support for a promotion. It is unrealistic to expect that faculty members will undertake such efforts on their own. It is also unfair. We have all seen cases where faculty members were asked to developed courses on new topics and then were penalized at promotion or tenure time for neglecting other professional expectations. That the faculty member had acquired an expertise allowing the department to offer courses attracting enthusiastic students was disregarded. Avoidance of such traps requires departmental consensus on the value of such training and professional support for the one undertaking it. It also demands a long-term public relations campaign involving every member of the department. Other departments and the administration must be convinced of the benefits accrued to the institution as a result of faculty development.
In the present difficult financial climate, released time or extra funding may be unavailable. In that case, colleagues may have to make a sacrifice for the trainee by accepting extra work to free the individual who us undergoing the training. For example, the department may decide to cancel one of the sections the trainee was to teach and add a few students to each of the remaining classes. This is not an ideal solution, but if this added responsibility is distributed fairly over a limited period of time and if the group understands that failure to offer courses in this area truly hampers the department and can be dangerous for their own welfare, enlightened self-interest will lead them to agree.
The second area where faculty development would play a role is in hiring decisions and the preparation for tenure. It no longer suffices to replace the retiring medievalist with a similar specialist. Every time someone retires, the chair and the department have to confront the overall situation and build according to a plan. They have to assess what they stand for, what is essential to their mission, and where they want to place their resources. Traditionally, hiring decisions are made by the chair working with a small executive committee. Although the actual selection of candidates and final responsibility remain with this group, a department that believes in rational faculty development holds extensive discussions involving all members before the hiring process begins. The rationale for seeking people with specific expertise and the implications of that new hire on the work of the department must be made clear to all before an ad is placed. The faculty should be kept informed of the progress of the search. The entire group should meet with the finalists during their campus visits, and comments of each faculty member should be given full consideration by those making the final decision. This type of open faculty building avoids the pitfalls we have all witnessed when a small group, bent on introducing something new, forces the will of the department and is then unable to protect the new hires from indifference and lack of support.
Once new members are hired with the approval of the majority, the department owes them protection, support, and opportunities to develop the talents they bring. However happy the department may be to have a young, energetic, highly trained recruit, it must protect that person from overexposure. It is counterproductive to assign the French or Spanish club to that new member—or to nominate the new female or minority member to every college committee. Very little service to the college should be expected of the new members during the first three years. In those early years, they should hone their teaching skills and do the necessary work to published their dissertations. They should be encouraged to attend scholarly meetings and give as many talks as possible. Travel money should be allocated to them. Whether or not the ethos of the institution that hired them stresses scholarly publications, it is in the interest of the new hires to publish since they have, after all, just finished dissertations and expect to base scholarly careers on the knowledge acquired during PhD studies. It is also in the interest of the institution to reaffirm and encourage that commitment to scholarship. If new members are pressed into service and not given time for research, opportunities for later growth are quashed. The best guarantee for continued scholarly production is a one-semester research leave after three and a half years. Encouragement for sustained research pays high dividends. Even an institution that does not pay much attention to publication may change its attitude, and allowing intensive doctoral training to peter out represent a real loss for the individual and the department. It is in the self-interest of all to have scholars in the department. It gives visibility to the group and creates intellectual excitement.
Equal attention must be paid to teaching. During these early years attitudes toward teaching are formed and effective teaching practices are developed. Concern with faculty development presupposes a program of regular supervision. All untenured faculty members should be observed at least once a semester and should receive a written evaluation from the observer. This should be followed by a face-to-face conference, in which senior teachers can help the instructor overcome problems and offer advice in developing new techniques. Classes taught by all candidates for promotion should be observed by several members of the executive committee or other senior members. All members of the department should have an annual conference with the chair, during which the three prongs of their expected contribution to the instruction—scholarship, teaching, and service—should be discussed and noted in writing. The chair interested in faculty development has to be fair and forthright in this evaluation, which must contain a clear statement of strengths and weaknesses. I realize how difficult and delicate a task this may be, but we must face reality if we are to develop faculty strengths.
Faculty development depends on consensus building, both within and without the department. It is in our interest to work as a unit and to have a clear idea of our goals and the path we must take to reach them.
The author is Professor of French and Executive Officers of the Program in Liberal Studies at the City University of New York, Graduate School and University Center. This article is based on her presentation at ADFL Seminar East, 18–20 June 1992, in Atlanta, Georgia.
© 1993 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.
|
|---|
|
|
|
