Faculty Development Program Model: A Strategic Insight

Authors

  • Mr. Anand Shankar Raja M Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, India.
  • Dr. L. Mynavathi Associate Professor, Department of Commerce, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru, India.

Keywords:

Faculty Development Program, Social science, Qualitative approach, the model framework

Abstract

Faculty Development Program for social science domain is very limited. There is no proper framework for FDP on how it should be conducted and in which domain it should be conducted for the skill enhancement of the faculties. Medical science and engineering have a prescribed set of areas, which can be used for FDP but for social science much more exposure are needed and hence this gap has motivated the researchers to bring out various new model frameworks for FDP with regard to social science domain.

The focus of the research is not to deal with statistical analysis and restrict the discussion based on the output. However, usage of good qualitative approaches to understand the need so that exact solution can be provided.

The research has made use of qualitative techniques to collect the data from various respondents such as educationalist, faculties of various domains belonging to social science, experts from industries etc. All the experiences shared by various respondents have been properly cleaned, and appropriately discussed. 

The researchers have framed four various model frameworks for this research. The first level model clearly states the importance of FDP at various levels, which has to be strictly followed by the educational institutions. The second level makes it clear on the various sub-core themes, which has to be considered for FDP, which will have a fruitful outcome. The third level is the most important one as it deals with the various resources, which are needed for a successful organisation of FDP, and the fourth model is a combination of all the first three models providing a holistic picture of FDP.

References

Rowbotham, M. A. (2015). The impact of faculty development on teacher self-efficacy, skills and retention (IERC FFR 2015-1). Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

Ortlieb, E. T., Biddix, J. P., & Doepker, G. M. (2010). A collaborative approach to higher education induction. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(2), 109-118.

Perez, A. M., McShannon, J. & Hynes, P. (2012). Community college faculty development program and student achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(5), 379-385.

Heimlich, J. E., & Norland, E. (1994). Developing teaching style in adult education. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Seaman, J., (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning, Washington, D.C.: Association of Public and Land-grantUniversities. 2009

Angen, MJ. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research. 10(3) pp. 378-395.

Creswell, JW. (1998).Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Denzin, NK. (1978). Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lincoln, YS. & Guba, EG. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Mays, N. & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 320 (7226), 50-52.

Hoyt, D.P. & Howard, G.S. Res High Educ (1978) 8: 25.

Reder, M (2010). Effective practices in the context of small colleges. In: Gillespie, K.J., and Robertson, D.L. (Eds.), A guide to faculty development 2nd ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 293-308, 2010.

Seaman, J., (2009). Online learning as a strategic asset. Volume II: The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning, Washington, D.C.: Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. 2009.

Carroll, R.G (1993). Implications of adult education theories for medical school faculty development programmes. Medical Teacher 15(2/3): 163-170 (1993).

Chua, A., and Lam, W (2007). Quality assurance in online education: The Universities 21 Global approach. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(1): 133-152, 2007.

Hinson, J.M., and LaPrairie, K.N (2005), Learning to Teach Online: Promoting Success through Professional Development. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 29(6): 483-493 (2005).

Downloads

Published

03-11-2021

How to Cite

Mr. Anand Shankar Raja M, & Dr. L. Mynavathi. (2021). Faculty Development Program Model: A Strategic Insight. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), 5(3(4), 98–107. Retrieved from https://researchersworld.com/index.php/ijms/article/view/1902

Issue

Section

Articles