Editorial

Faculty Professional Development
I did a literature search to try to find some empirical data about professional development of faculty engaging in distance education. I defined professional development as “planned learning experiences provided by an organization for its employees or members, the intention of which is the advancement of knowledge and skill that pertain to their employment or professional competence.”

I found a lot of comments about why professional development is important, usually folded within articles about faculty roles, faculty motivation, and so on, but I found very few reports about the subject specifically, based on empirical data. Those that I did find suggest that the most popular professional development activity is the “just in time,” one-on-one help that faculty sometimes call for when they are unable to manage part of the e-learning delivery platform. Next most likely to appeal is the online tutorial, while conventional workshops tend to be poorly attended.

Overall, the picture regarding the faculty response to opportunities for training and development in teaching at a distance is not very bright. That is certainly my personal impression. It looks to me as if faculty generally “vote with their feet” by ignoring most of the invitations offered by their institutions to participate in training and similar events. The only professional development events at which a significant attendance is likely are in those institutions where attendance is required as a condition of service—or where there are external motivators such as payment for attendance.

Thinking about this, I conjectured that perhaps there is a problem of misalignment between professional development needs as perceived by the institution and the needs felt by individual faculty members themselves.

I decided that something was missing from my definition. The problem with the definition is that, like the programs it defines, it is provider centered. What is missing is the perspective of the individual faculty members on their own development. This insight leads to a slightly different way of defining professional development, a more person-centered definition. This says, “Professional development consists of planned learning experiences designed by or in collaboration with individuals who have the intention of advancing knowledge and skills to be used in their employment.” In this sense, making the sacrifice to attend graduate school is the most advanced form of professional development, and the reason graduate study is so vibrant and productive is it is a very rewarding form of self-development for students and it provides ongoing professional self-development for those who work with them as faculty. The reason these same faculty members rarely turn out for training activities provided by the institution is there is no self-perceived personal professional development need being met.

If There Is a Problem, Is There a Solution?

If proper research bears out the conjecture that there is a general problem with institutionally provided professional development programs, there would appear to be at least two possible alternative solutions. Either they be improved, or they be abandoned and the money be spent in a different way to achieve the same objective.

Improvement is going to cost more money. An alternative way of spending it would cost no more and might give better return on the investment.

Improving programs would require, at least, the following:

• Establishment of a professionally staffed training department with a proper system for planning and delivering, not ad hoc on the side.
• Establishment of a high-level institutional policy and strategy regarding professional development and an assurance that faculty know what it is.
• A way of regularly and systematically polling faculty to ascertain their perceived learning and training needs (as contrasted with second guessing by administrators) to provide the basis for deciding programs to be developed and offered. This is an absolute requirement.
• Better monitoring of the quality of what is offered—not in terms of the presentations and activities themselves, but in terms of the extent to which it meets perceived learning needs and its impact on institutional and individual performance.

But if personal professional development as exemplified by those who engage in graduate study—which is development driven by internal motivators—is a good model, could it not be applied to professional development more widely? It might be argued that university administration should be relieved of the responsibility of trying to second-guess what its employees need for their professional development and instead stimulate and systematically support self-managed professional development. Under this model, funds now spent on planning and providing for faculty would instead be dedicated to systematically

• funding conference attendance;
• providing release time for practice-oriented research;
• providing funds for internships at other institutions, domestic and foreign;
• monitoring results of personal professional development;
• rewarding development efforts with recognitions and promotions and monetary compensation;
• and for some employees, supporting extended periods of study leave including postgraduate study of distance education.

The price to the faculty of such self-management of institutional funding of their self-development has to be accountability for that funding (of which currently there is very little).

Perhaps each faculty member might be provided money in a personal professional development account and would be required to prepare an annual personal professional development program. In exchange for funding for that program, the faculty member would have to meet agreed upon performance criteria derived from the professional development program, with measures planned and taken at short-, medium-, and long-term intervals. I would suggest that participation in such professional development be a condition of service, similar to participation in the institution’s health care scheme. Is a well-designed, well-managed, and well-monitored personal professional development account likely to pay better dividends than the “provided input” strategy generally used at present? I think it could be.

Michael Grahame Moore
Editor