| The purpose of this study was to examine faculty development programs in proprietary schools and to identify organizational structures and developmental practices being implemented to support the faculty development process.; A survey instrument soliciting feedback on faculty development programs and practices was mailed to the owners/presidents of 220 ACICS accredited associate-degree granting institutions and forwarded to the individuals responsible for faculty development programs and practices at those institutions. In cases where no particular individual was responsible, the owners/presidents completed the survey instrument. Respondents were asked to provide feedback on administrative structures and particular faculty development offerings at their institutions. The overall response rate was 60% for returned surveys and 55% for completed returns.; Findings from this study indicated that all proprietary schools that responded to the survey offered some type of faculty development. Of the respondents, only 17 institutions had a designated department for faculty development; most of these departments had only been in existence 3--4 years. Yearly budget amounts for faculty development were not excessive, with only 4% of institutions reporting budget allocations equal or greater than {dollar}25,000. Four faculty development activities were most commonly offered: (1) release time to attend seminars, workshops, and conferences; (2) orientation programs for new faculty; (3) student ratings of instruction; and (4) classroom observations by supervisor. Less than 50% of institutions reported utilizing follow-up procedures to monitor the effectiveness of faculty development programs. However, the majority of institutions recognized the need to improve teaching and regarded this effort as a primary goal of faculty development initiatives. Finally, time constraints and the accommodation of faculty schedules were major challenges for institutions in planning and implementing faculty development activities.; This study concluded that the majority of institutions perceived faculty development to be part of an existing administrative structure. While not extensive, program offerings and budget resources indicated a level of commitment to designating time and resources for faculty development programs. The relatively small proportion of institutions that reported using follow-up procedures indicated the need for more institutions to implement strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of faculty development programs. The publicly traded sector provided more extensive resources to support some faculty development activities. This finding implied that resource allocations may be influenced by the size of institutions in terms of student enrollment and the number of faculty members. Time and scheduling challenges suggested that institutions reexamine their existing scheduling structures and attempt to better accommodate both faculty schedules and faculty development program activities when planning the academic calendar.; Results from this study presented additional questions that may indicate the need for further research in the areas of (a) designing a model, comprehensive faculty development program and (b) examining the methods used by institutions in planning, designing, implementing, evaluating and following up on faculty development initiatives. |
