Taylor and Rege-Colet, (2010) Stes et al. (2009) and Neumann (2001) have all observed that in recent years, higher education institutions around the world have responded to increasing public expectations by seriously addressing the issue of instructional quality in postsecondary teaching. Both Wright (1995) and Fletcher & Patrick (1998) point out that educational policy offices, development units, and centers for innovation in teaching and learning have emerged and created a thriving community of professionals engaged in the development of teaching and learning capacity and quality in higher education. According to the Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education (POD), there are currently over 1,200 centers worldwide that are dedicated to the enhancement of teaching practices in higher education. Despite this growth however, Sorcinelli (2000) argues that the induction and mentoring of faculty members is often overlooked in higher education, even though many faculty members report they struggle with the teaching aspects of their responsibilities, and despite the fact that faculty accountability for student learning has increased.

In a 2015 report published by the Illinois Education Research Council, Rowbotham (2015) points out that continued employment and advancement for faculty members depends upon growth in teaching practices; thus, there is a need for faculty across all disciplines to understand best instructional practices and the strategies that develop effective teaching behaviors and skills. Rowbotham continues by arguing that “While faculty members at the university level are considered experts in their field of study, many may not have been trained in practices of effective teaching, how to share their expertise, or how to improve their teaching” (p.5).

This literature review will explore the history of faculty development in the academy, focusing on post WWII to present. Additionally, a review of the literature on theories of teaching and learning and how they have informed faculty development programs in higher education will be presented. Finally, data on outcomes of faculty development programs will be explored and suggestions for further research by discussing gaps in the literature.

Taylor & Rege Colet in their research into centers of teaching and learning revealed that there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes faculty development. As they stated:

When we turned to the public context of scholarship in the field, we discovered an abundant literature defining faculty development, but no common definition of the concept. A survey of available print and online sources (Land, 2004; MacDonald, 2002; Professional and Organizational Network in Higher Education [POD], 2002b; Sorcinelli, Austin, Eddy, & Beach, 2006; Webb, 1996; Wright, 1995) revealed that there is a lack of consensus on what constitutes faculty development. This observation speaks to the powerful influence of institutional context on definitions: the meaning and scope of faculty development is a negotiated phenomenon and can vary widely across institutional environments. (p.141)

They also found that while the term faculty development is still the most common in the North American context it is increasingly used to refer to not only the development of skills related to teaching and learning, but also to support endeavors such as grant funding, career planning, publishing and scientific activities. Others, including Amundsen & Wilson argue that the term educational development should be used when the goal of a particular program is solely on the development of learning and teaching capacity. Both Taylor & Rege Colet and Amundsen & Wilson argue that the term educational development should be used when discussing what most refer to faculty development, since it can encompass many of the goals which other programs contain; namely, curriculum development, organizational development, instructional development and professional development. This literature review will focus on both faculty development and educational development, however I will begin with an overview of the most common key words and concepts in the field of study.

Curriculum Development

According to Cook (2000), the term curricular development or reform refers to the review and revision of existing sets of courses or the creation of new sets of courses that a program, department, or school/college offers to its students. As both Diamond (1998) and Stark and Lattuca (1997) explain, in higher education, this approach is about implementing national or local reforms; responding to new demands and needs in higher education; identifying new scientific domains; defining the goals of instruction; selecting and designing courses or learning modules that fit the curriculum and enable achievement of the learning objectives; making the most of available resources; and monitoring implementation and outcomes.

Organizational Development

Both Diamond (2005) and the POD (2002) define organizational development, which focuses on the organizational structure of an institution and its subcomponents, as another form of support sometimes blended into teaching centers or programs. As outlined by the POD, organizational development provides a third perspective on maximizing institutional effectiveness. The focus of these programs is the organizational structure of the institution. The philosophy is that if one can build a structure that will be efficient and effective in supporting faculty and students, the teaching/learning process will thrive. According to the POD, many centers are involved in large-scale institutional change efforts, involving high-level college and university priorities, such as grants designed to transform teaching and learning structures and practices.

Professional Development

Centra (1989) defines professional development in higher education as a system which focuses on each faculty member as a person and is concerned with their development as a scholar. Scholars such as Griffin (1983) posits that professional development programs vary widely in their content and format; however, most share a common purpose: to “alter the professional practices, beliefs, and understanding of school persons toward an articulated end” (p. 2). Guskey (2002) adds on by also stating that in most cases, the end is the improvement of student learning. However, according to Stes et al., (2010) professional development is also concerned with the entire career development process of a faculty member and is not limited to teaching, but also considers research and social services.

In this section of the literature review, an overview of the role that faculty development has played in the academy post WWII to present will be discussed.

Teaching as Content Mastery

Wise (1967) argues, “The American college teacher is the only high level professional American man on the scene who enters upon a career without the prerequisite trial of competence nor experience in the use of the tools of his profession” (p.3). As Gaff (1975) argued, the beliefs about the teacher’s role that dominated this period were “the traditional academic folklore” captured by slogans such as: teachers are born, not made; a professor’s classroom is his castle; hire good people and get out of the way. Additionally, as Wise mentions, the belief system at this time in American higher education supported the concept of division of labor: “My job is to deliver the lecture and to test the learners. Their job is to learn” (p.21). Figure 2.1 represents the belief of the teacher as content expert which dominated the beliefs about faculty development and the programs that they offered.

Figure 2.1 Belief System #1: Teacher as Content Expert

Note: From “A brief history of educational development: Implications for teachers and developers,” by R.G. Tiberius, 2002, To Improve the Academy, 20: 20-37 https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2002.tb00571.x

The Professional and Organizational Development (POD) Network in Higher Education was established in 1976 by individuals who recognized the need for a network that would support one another in their endeavors to enhance the effectiveness and fulfillment of learning, teaching, and institutional life (POD Network, n.d.). Matthias (2019) argued that this marked a significant turning point in faculty development, as it emphasized the importance of ongoing professional growth and the creation of supportive networks among educators. Matthias continues by pointing out that an attempt to integrate these two primary responsibilities of faculty members, as well as to respond to a concern in the 1980s about the potential for misalignment of faculty work and institutional mission, resulted in the emergence of the Boyer model in the 1990s that created the scholarship of teaching and learning. Boyer’s (1990) work which was funded by the The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, argued that, traditional research, or the scholarship of discovery, had been the center of academic life and crucial to an institution's advancement, but it needed to be broadened and made more flexible to include not only the new social and environmental challenges beyond the campus but also the reality of contemporary life. His vision was to change the research mission of universities by redefining scholarship (Matthias, 2019).

He proposed that scholarship includes these four different categories of activity:

● The scholarship of discovery, which includes original research that advances knowledge (i.e., basic research)

● The scholarship of integration, which involves synthesis of information across disciplines, across topics within a discipline, or across time (i.e., interprofessional education, or science communication);

● The scholarship of application (also later called the scholarship of engagement), which goes beyond the service duties of a faculty member to those within or outside the university and involves the application of disciplinary expertise with results that can be shared with and/or evaluated by peers; and

● The scholarship of teaching and learning, which involves the systematic study of teaching and learning processes.

Further, O’Meara & Rice (2005) argue that the Boyer model has influenced many institutions to consider expanding the definition of scholarship used to evaluate and reward faculty work and has led to an increase in the integration of knowledge. One notable publication which emerged in the academy and in the field of faculty development is "To Improve the Academy: Resources for Faculty, Instructional, and Organizational Development," a series of books published by the POD Network since 1982 (POD Network, n.d.). This publication features articles, case studies, and practical strategies addressing various aspects of faculty development, including teaching and learning, curriculum design, assessment, and faculty leadership. Finally, as Tiberius (2002) argues, a transformation had taken place in the late 1960s and early 1970s in the normative beliefs about the role of teaching. According to Gerry Gaff (1975), this transformation was characterized by the emergence of a new set of assumptions about the role of teacher: The belief that instructional competencies are learned; that these competencies include a complex set of knowledge, attitudes, values, motivations, skills, and sensitivities; and that teachers had a responsibility to learn the competencies.

Teaching as Skilled Performance

In the late 1970’s, Orme (1977) argued that a new belief system was emerging which held the teacher responsible, not only for mastery of the field, but also for mastery of the skills of teaching. Chickering & Gamson (1987) add on to Orme’s argument, when they pointed out that the shift towards teaching as skilled performance also aligned with the broader movement in higher education towards learner-centered approaches. They argue that educators began to recognize that student engagement and active participation are crucial for deep learning and knowledge retention. They argue that,

Learning is not a spectator sport. Students do not learn much just by sitting in classes listening to teachers, memorizing pre-packaged assignments, and spitting out answers. They must talk about what they are learning, write about it, relate it to past experiences, apply it to their daily lives. They must make what they learn part of themselves. (p.4)

According to Tiberius (2002), this shift necessitated the development of faculty development programs that focused not only on subject matter expertise but also on pedagogical skills and student-centered instructional practices. Tiberius argued that administrators not only assumed direct responsibility for financial support, but also heavily supported educational development units as well. The units were increasingly staffed by a new group of researchers and practitioners who could translate research for teachers. Tiberius (2002) also argued that developers could make professors teach better by training them in the skilled performances. And researchers could suggest and evaluate teaching methods that could be taught as specific skills (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Teaching as Skilled Performance: Early 1960’s to Present

Note: From “A brief history of educational development: Implications for teachers and developers,” by R.G. Tiberius, 2002, To Improve the Academy, 20: 20-37 https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2002.tb00571.x

According to Orne (1977), this belief system held the teacher responsible, not only for mastery of the field, but also for mastery of the skills of teaching. The teacher could make learning happen. Additionally, Darling-Hammond (1997) supports the idea of teaching as skilled performance. In her book "The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work," she emphasized the importance of teacher expertise and the development of instructional strategies that promote active learning and student engagement. Darling-Hammond argue that effective teaching goes beyond subject matter knowledge and requires the ability to create a supportive learning environment and facilitate meaningful interactions with students.

One example of an organization promoting teaching as skilled performance is the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The Foundation's Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) initiative encourages faculty members to engage in research on effective teaching practices and share their findings with the broader educational community. Huber & Hutchings, (2005) were then one of the first groups of scholars to attempt to attach educational theory to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning movement. They emphasized the importance of evidence-based teaching, where instructors use research and data to inform their instructional decisions.

Teaching as Facilitation of Learning

Tiberius (2002) argues, in 1980, facilitation of learning was challenging skilled performance for the dominant belief system about teaching. This movement toward sensitivity to students also had very early roots. It began in the late 1940s and early 1950s with Lewinian group dynamics and Rogerian nondirective therapy. It blossomed in the mid-1960s and early 1970s with the NTL training sessions and group dynamics workshops that proliferated during the explosion of faculty development units in the 1960s. In the late 1970s and 1980s, student- and group-centered teaching became very popular.

The difference between teaching as skilled performance and facilitation of learning can be captured visually by adding two-way arrows to the chart in Figure 2.3.

Figure 2.3 Facilitation of Learning: Mid-1960s to Present

Note: From “A brief history of educational development: Implications for teachers and developers,” by R.G. Tiberius, 2002, To Improve the Academy, 20: 20-37 https://doi-org.proxy2.library.illinois.edu/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2002.tb00571.x

As Tiberius (2002) explains:

Those who focused on interaction to facilitate learning tended to see their relationships with others as two-way. Developers not only translated research results, they also conducted research and collaborated with researchers. Teachers learned from students too. The teacher was the facilitator of learning whose primary task was to find out about the learner so that interventions could be targeted at specific needs. The teacher needed more than the skills of lecturing, explaining, and providing feedback; the teacher needed the skils of listening, understanding the student and receiving feedback. (p. 4)

This belief system, as Tiberius argues, was a major change in the nature of the teacher’s expertise because it changed the task of teaching from one of static expertise to dynamic expertise. Static tasks require little or no improvisation, while dynamic tasks require decision making and the ability to adapt to ones surroundings. Furthermore, at this time the rise in importance of cognitive scientists (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Vigotsky, 1986) gave us further support for interest in teacher-student interaction. This research suggested that learning that takes place in the natural setting is more likely to transfer to that setting, including the social setting, the normal interactions between teachers and students.

Constructivism, especially social constructivism, became more popular in this period. Constructivists view learning as a process of enculturation into a community of practice by means of social interaction among learners and between learners and teachers. (Tiberius, 2012).

 Fox (1983) argues that the growth metaphors (teaching is like gardening) were gradually superseding transfer metaphors (teaching is like filling a mug) as individual teachers developed and the field progressed. Fernstermacher (1986) attacked the assumption that teachers were responsible for student learning. He argued that the teachers’ task is to help students perform the tasks of learning. A review of the literature on faculty development concluded that the metaphors of teaching and learning were changing from teaching as transfer of information to teaching and learning as an interaction or conversation (Tiberius, 1986).

This shift in thinking about teaching and learning led Barr and Tagg (1995) to raise the discussion of a need to shift to a learning paradigm focused on a student-centered pedagogy. They argued that, at the time, universities should be shifting from the “traditional, dominant, paradigm” which they called the “Instruction Paradigm” to a “Learning Paradigm” which, they thought would “liberate institutions from a set of difficult contratits” (p.13). Similarly, Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) advocate for a shift towards learner-centered teaching, focusing on engaging students in active learning and promoting their autonomy and responsibility for their education. Their work highlights the significance of creating interactive and collaborative learning environments that encourage student engagement, reflection, and self-assessment.

Current Trends in Faculty Development

In 2006, Sorcinelli et al. labeled faculty development in the early 21st century as the Age of Networking, responding to the current reality of the changes in faculty (e.g., full-time to part-time, aging, and increasingly diverse), as well as an enhanced focus on student success due to the public criticism of higher education. These scholars chose this label because they recognized a need in higher education for collaboration, both among faculty members themselves and also between faculty developers and other departments within the institution, in order to respond to these challenges In 2016, Beach et al. retained the label of the Age of Networking, acknowledging that the challenges that prompted that label are still true today, but they also added a new label for faculty development, the Age of Assessment, in response to trends in higher education that have developed over the last decade. Researchers in the field of faculty development such as Austin & Sorcinelli (2013), Gappa et al., (2007) and Mamiseishvil, (2012) all argue that fiscal constraints and public calls for accountability have fused with the existing focus on student learning (i.e., the Age of the Learner that arose in the 1990s), resulting in the urgent need to tie the assessment of higher education institutions with student learning outcomes. Additionally, Austin & Sorcinelli outline in their paper the additional challenges facing faculty development in recent years, namely; increased student diversity, the challenges of integrating technology into the classroom, and changes in faculty characteristics and a shift in appointment patterns. Despite these challenges, researchers in the field, especially Austin & Sorcinelli, Cook and Kaplan (2011) and Gillespie and Robinson (2010) all see the future of faculty development as growing and increasingly linked to the organizational development of the academy. As Austin & Sorcinelli argue:

There already is evidence in both literature and practice of a heightened awareness of faculty development as central to helping ensure the health of colleges and universities as functional organizations. For example, developers are increasingly becoming involved in governance structures, creating more collaborations with other units committed to student and faculty success, aligning their centers with institutional priorities, engaging in discussions of reward structures, developing leadership abilities in faculty, and working with academic leaders, especially chairs and deans who create help environments that support good teaching and scholarship. (p.94)

In a survey conducted by Welch and Plaxton-Moore (2017) in order to determine if faculty developers used a theoretical framework to inform faculty development processes and practices found that, surprisingly, 61% do not use a theoretical framework, in contrast to 19% who do and approximately 20% who were unsure. In this study, respondents were invited to name the theoretical frameworks they use. Of the 13 responses, three referenced Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model and two cited Mezirow’s (1991, 2000) transformative learning. Individual respondents also identified Schön’s (1983) reflective practitioner model, Lawler’s (2003) community of adult learners, Freire’s (1970) critical learning praxis, and the framework of communities of practice described by Lave (1982) and Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002). Situated cognition, self-directed learning, critical pedagogy, and “feminist and culturally responsive teaching and learning” were also mentioned without specific citations. It was noted that the survey asked respondents to indicate whether they used a theory of learning to guide or frame the cognitive process of faculty development, yet some responses listed theoretical frameworks for student learning in engaged teaching and learning.

 Van Note Chism et al. (2013) reviewed the literature on theories of faculty development in higher education and noted that theoretical foundations for faculty development tend to be developmental in nature, focusing on how faculty change and grow. These researchers also observed theories of individual learning, such as the developmental model of Lewin (1947) and experiential learning described by Dewey (1933) and Kolb (1984), as the most common theoretical models incorporated. Reflective practice described by Schön (1983) and Eraut (1994) is also utilized to a degree, according to the researchers review of the literature. Van Note Chism et al. also synthesized five developmental components common to all theoretical foundations for faculty professional development, regardless of the topical focus:

1. An entry point based on need. Faculty enter into continued professional education due to an exterior trigger such as an organizational mandate or an interior motivation based on personal experience.

2. Formulating a plan to change practice. Participants explicitly or implicitly contemplate how to revise their professional practice based on new information.

3. Active experimentation. Faculty will incorporate new knowledge or skills on a trial basis rather than entirely adopt and assimilate them on a permanent basis.

4. Observation of impact. Faculty will observe the impact of the experimental implementation of new knowledge or skills.

5. Reflection and implications. Based on the observation, a faculty member reflects on the impact of the trial application and determines whether to adopt or reject the new knowledge or skill.

Knowles (1973) outlined a model of adult learning that he called ‘andragogy’, which consists primarily of a set of assumptions about the adult learner. Knowles claimed that adults must know why they need to learn something before they undertake to learn it. They must move from a dependent self-concept to a self-directing one. They have accumulated more experience, and experiences of a different quality, than children and their readiness to learn is linked to the tasks associated with their social role and stage of life. Knowles argues that adults engage in problem-centered, rather than subject-centered learning and are driven by internal rather than external motivation. In the pedagogical model of andragogy, which Knowles identifies as having been linked historically with teacher-directed education of children, these assumptions are reversed. Knowles argues that andragogy assumes that learners need to know only that they must learn what the teacher teaches, and their personality becomes dependent, rather than self-directing. Their own experience is positioned as being of little worth, the experience that counts in the classroom being that of the teacher. They learn what the teacher tells them they need to learn, not what is relevant to their own lives. They are understood to have a subject-centered orientation to learning, and they are seen as being best persuaded to learn through the use of external forms of motivation (Knowles, 1973). According to Tusting and Barton (2003) early editions of Knowles’ work make a clear distinction between pedagogy as suitable for children and andragogy as suitable for adults. Additionally, Stephen Lieb (1991) wrote an article regarding andragogy in which he stated that “adults have special needs and requirements as learners” (p. 2). His nomenclature defined several adult learning principles that stated adults are autonomous and self-directed, experienced and knowledgeable, goal-oriented, relevancy-oriented, practical, and desiring respect. In addition, Lieb described four critical elements of adult learning— motivation, reinforcement, retention, and transference—that stimulate several senses and increase the chances of teaching success.

Korthagen (2004) noted that the main concern of the Competency Based Model is that "…observable behavioral criteria could serve as a basis for the training of novices" (p. 79).

Steiner et al. (2008) define competency as a set of conscious, trainable skills and abilities which make a teacher effective. They argue that "Competency is a pattern of thinking, feeling, acting or speaking; which makes a person successful in a specific job or role” (p. 5). Naumescu (2008) asserted that in order to become competent one needs to mobilize their knowledge base and apply it in practical situations.

De Jong et al. (2011) developed and validated a rating scale focusing on student perceptions of their teachers’ competencies to encourage reflective learning in small groups, which they called the STEERLing scale. The researchers applied an iterative procedure to reduce an initial list of 241 items pertaining to teacher competencies to 47 items. Subsequently, they validated the instrument in two successive studies. In the first study, the researchers invited 679 medical and speech and language therapy students to assess the teachers of their professional development groups with the STERLinG scale. In the second study, which involved 791 medical, dental, and speech and language therapy students, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis using the oblique multiple group (OMG) method to verify the original structure. The researchers concluded that the STERLinG scale is a practical and valid tool for gathering student perceptions of their teachers’ competencies to facilitate reflective learning in small groups considering its stable structure, the correspondence of the STERLinG scale structure with educational theories and the coverage of important domains of reflection.

Van Note Chism et al. (2013) noted that a competency-based approach to faculty development has overt expectations (if not explicit requirements) that participants will assimilate and apply new information and skills, often in a developmental and chronological scaffold over time. Many programs that use this approach will include assessment methods to verify assimilation and implementation by participants. Blanchard et al. (2009) developed a comprehensive scope and sequence of 14 competencies that define an engaged scholar. They categorized each competency across three levels of experience and expertise ranging from novice to intermediate to advanced. These competencies include understanding and applying the concepts, principles, theory, and practice of community-engaged scholarship; transferring skills to working with partners; disseminating new knowledge gained from community-engaged scholarship through publications and presentations; balancing and integrating community-engaged scholarship within the trilogy of academic missions (teaching, research, and service); and preparation for and successful reward of promotion and tenure.

Axtell (2012) developed another in-house competency-based framework for faculty development at the University of Minnesota consisting of two broad domains, each incorporating five categories or competencies. The faculty development domain consists of (1) skills, (2) career development, (3) critical reflection, (4) building and sustaining relationships, and (5) navigating and changing the institutional system. The domain of community engaged scholarship includes (1) teaching, (2) research, (3) practice, (4) outreach, and (5) administration.

Shobha Shankar et al. (2020) described their competency framework as (1) a comprehensive understanding of subject matter, (2) planning and execution of appropriate learning experience, (3) identify prerequisites and knowledge of students, (4) professional development and Exhibit professionalism, and (5) engaging in active research.

In a review of the research, Hendry and Dean (2002) provided evidence that faculty accountability, student evaluations of teaching and improvement of teaching effectiveness are related, including an explanation that a faculty development specialist may interpret and utilize student evaluations of teaching comments to suggest interventions, instructional design, or specific teaching strategies due to a review of the feedback. They asserted:

Demands from the community and government for increased quality in higher education have led to the mass implementation of a variety of improvement procures, including increased use of student and peer evaluation processes. Academic developers are centrally involved in this. (Hendry & Dean, 2008, p. 80)

Watson and Grossman (1994) suggested that a causation of the fragmenting that is evident in faculty development programming is that there is not a universally agreed upon definition of good teaching. They noted that faculty admit that they model the teaching styles observed throughout their time as students. The literature reviewed to date has articulated significant concern for the lack of attention given to teaching methodology (Boyer, 1990; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Guskin, 1994; Hendry & Dean, 2002).

Boylan and Bonham (1998) developed a study which provided a comprehensive analysis of developmental education programs. They identified 20 characteristics of successful programs. Eight of those characteristics related directly to teaching: (a) variety of teaching methods, (b) sound cognitive theory-based courses, (c) computer-based instruction to supplement regular classroom activities, (d) classroom/laboratory integration, (e) developmental course exit standards that are consistent with entry standards for subsequent courses, (f) strategic learning that teaches students how to monitor their comprehension and think strategically about learning, (g) professional training for faculty and staff who work with developmental students, and (h) critical thinking that focuses on the types of thinking required in college-level courses.

Devlin (2007) argues that there is increased pressure to ensure the implementation of effective teaching practices in higher education even though a set definition of the term itself appears to be non-existent. Effective teaching in higher education can be grounded with two elements: that teaching effectiveness meets the requirements of the context in which it occurs (Devlin, 2007), and that the skills and practices are identified and supported by research (Penny, 2003). Weimer (2002) stated that the term teaching effectiveness had its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s; however, it can be argued that the term and assessment of effective teaching practice are once again in the spotlight of higher education. Weimer (2002) theorized that to effectively progress toward learner-centered teaching, instructional practices and learning need to change in five areas: the role of teacher; balance of power; function of content; responsibility for learning; and processes and purposes of evaluation. Weimer encouraged faculty to evolve beyond what one knows and the comfort of the often one- sided, lecture-based transmission of content, to foster and support the evolution of the student becoming a more independent learner. In addition, the author claimed that faculty sharing power with students helps students participate and advocate in their own learning.

Chickering and Gamson (1999) have since advanced and refined the rubric of the “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” since its original dissemination in 1987. The Seven Principles, which are directly related to the characteristics and behaviors, as well as interaction among faculty and students, offer guidelines for good practice. Good practice (a) encourages contact between faculty and students; (b) encourages reciprocity and cooperation among students; (c) encourages active learning; (d) gives prompt feedback; (e) emphasizes time on task; (f) communicates high expectations; and (g) respects diverse talents and ways of learning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). In addition, there have been adaptations for assessment of areas including student engagement, effective teaching practice, and strategic planning. Eggleston (2011) explained that, while it is doubtful that any single assignment, any one activity, or any one tool can achieve all seven principles, suggestions provided aim to positively support each practice. Timely feedback from faculty fosters competence because it provides information that can be helpful in modifying future performance (Chickering & Gamson, 1991). Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that frequent feedback that provides information specific to the task enhances students’ perceived competence given that it targets specific actions the student can take to move to higher levels of excellence. Perry (2003) posits that explaining to students at the beginning of a course the types of strategies that are likely to lead to their success also enhances students’ perceived academic control, because it is associated with greater investment of effort and increased positive affect (Perry, 2003).

This section reviews the literature associated with the impact that several faculty development interventions have had on both faculty perceptions of their own teaching and students’ perceptions of faculty teaching post intervention. Through the review of the literature, using mainly two large meta-analyses, the themes that emerged were the types of interventions being studies and the skills that the interventions were attempting to develop.

A review of the literature found that most empirical studies on faculty development in higher education are organized around the type of program offered to faculty. Steinert et al. (2016) provide the most recent critical meta-analysis of the literature on the effectiveness of faculty development programs on teaching and learning. In their study, the researchers reviewed 111 studies between 2002 and 2012 that met their review criteria. All reports described a wide range of instructional methods that included lectures, small-group discussions, interactive exercises, role plays and simulations, films and videotape reviews of performance. No programs were completely lecture-based, and the majority included an experiential component with opportunities for guided practice with feedback (i.e. micro-teaching). Some programs offered on-site training opportunities where teachers could readily apply what they learned. Few described a direct link to teachers’ ongoing educational activities, although educational projects and in vivo practice were part of several interventions (most notably seminars and short courses). Needs assessments were used sparingly. They structured their review based on type of intervention of the faculty developers: (1) workshops, seminar series, short courses, and longitudinal programs and fellowships.

Of the 111 interventions outlined in Steinert et al.’s meta-analysis (2016) thirty-two were described as “workshops”. Workshops were defined as “a single intervention of varying duration” (p. 513). The researchers concluded that many workshop components were found to be of value among the faculty members’ responses in the various studies. Steinert, et al. found that the most common workshop reactions of the participants were “the interchange with colleagues and peers, the methodologies used (small group discussions, role plays and simulations), the presentation of frameworks for teaching and learning, and the creation of safe environments” (p. 775). In terms of the learning outcomes of workshops, Steinert, et al. found that many workshops led to self-reported changes in attitudes and perceptions towards teaching and learning, including comfort and confidence in teaching, and an increased interest in teaching and faculty development. For example, Mahler and Neumann (1987) examined the effects of a single workshop on the cognitive dimension of instruction, noting increased cognitive versatility and activities at Bloom’s higher taxonomy levels of comprehension, application and evaluation. There was a concomitant decrease in activities at the lower levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Sixty faculty members were observed. Trained, blinded sixth-year medical students assessed three videotaped lessons of each participant, taken before and after the intervention. Changes in teaching behavior and cognitive versatility were noted in all classroom settings. Similarly, Nasmith and Steinert (2001) studied the effects on teaching effectiveness after a four-hour workshop to faculty members in the Faculty of Medicine at McGill University. The workshop allowed participants to explore interactive techniques and incorporate them into their lectures. For this study, an evaluation was conducted of the workshop given in Spring 1996. The experimental group consisted of the first 60 faculty members to register for the workshop, and the comparison group comprised the 40 individuals on the waiting list. Three instruments were used in the evaluation. An immediate postworkshop questionnaire was completed by the participants. Six months after the session, a 6-month postworkshop questionnaire was completed by the experimental and comparison groups that explored the use of interactive lecturing techniques since the workshop. In addition, 23 individuals from the experimental group and 14 from the comparison group were videotaped 6 months after the session and were scored on a videotape observational grid by an independent rater. Overall, the workshop was deemed very useful by the majority of the participants. On the 6-month postworkshop questionnaire, the only difference found in the demographic data between the 2 groups was in the number of years of teaching experience. The experimental group had given more interactive lectures over the past 6 months and had used more audience responses, certain types of questions, audience surveys, live interviews, verbal and written cases, and study guides. From the videotape observational data, the experimental group scored higher in questioning and engaging the audience, and in using nonverbal gestures. As well, this group received higher ratings for their interactivity and for the students' responsiveness.

As opposed to the self-reporting studies discussed above, only a few studies focused on students’ perceptions of teacher improvement after a workshop intervention. Baroffio et al. (1999) demonstrated that the workshop intervention improved student ratings of teacher behavior significantly. They examined the effects of experience and faculty development workshops on tutorial skills. Students provided ratings of 88 tutors (all of whom had more than one year of tutor experience) using a 16-item questionnaire adapted from a previously validated instrument. Of the 88 tutors, all had attended a Level I workshop and 44 attended a more advanced Level II workshop. The Level I workshop was a three-phase preparation for tutoring that involved experiential and interactive learning; the Level II workshop was optional and addressed difficult tutorial experiences, which were analyzed jointly by the group. Student ratings of tutor performance after the Level I workshop generally increased with experience. The group ratings become more homogenous with experience, apparently due to greater improvement in those with lower scores. Despite the overall improvement, tutors did not improve either in provision of feedback or in assisting the tutorial group with problem synthesis. Tutors who attended the voluntary Level II workshop had higher baseline scores than the group attending Level I, suggesting that these higher baseline scores provided a motivation to improve. Among these higher scoring groups however, more improvement occurred in those tutors with lower skills. Comparing the post-test scores of those who attended the Level II workshop with those who did not, the authors concluded that the Level II workshop produced an effect greater than that of experience alone, especially for low-rated tutors, in terms of overall performance (d = 0.94) and achievement on problem synthesis (d = 0.85). The high magnitude of effect values calculated for low-rated tutors suggests that faculty development interventions may be particularly beneficial for this group of individuals. Additionally, Notzer and Abramovitz (2008) examined to what extent participation in a brief workshop can improve clinical instructors' performance in the long run, and which particular dimensions of performance are improved. The study included a sample of 149 faculty members who undertook a required workshop in basic instructional skills. The teaching performance of these faculty members was measured by student feedback a year after the workshop. The study used pre- and post-test design, with a comparison group of 121 faculty members. Notzer and Abramovitz found that student ratings for 5 dimensions of clinical instruction increased significantly, but only for the study group who had participated in a workshop. The comparison groups ratings were unchanged. The highest improvement in the instructors performance related to availability of teachers to students (see table 2.1).

Table 2.1

Student ratings of 149 instructors before and after participation in the workshop

Note. From “A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education” by Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M., & Prideaux, D. (2006).: BEME Guide No. 8. Medical Teacher, 28(6), 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600902976

Steinert et al. (2016) define a short course as an intervention ranging in duration from one week to one month. DaRosa at al. (1996) studied the outcomes of a six- day course which was designed to provide academic surgeons with the knowledge and skills necessary to enhance the surgical education curriculum, teaching strategies, educational program administration, and performance evaluation. The effect of the course was studied by using a longitudinal survey approach. A survey was mailed to participants 3 to 6 months after they completed the course. Graduates were asked to describe any education-related actions taken attributable to attending the Surgeons as Educators course. The quality of course content and presentations were evaluated by using end-of-course evaluation forms and dally feedback forms and by an external reviewer. Within 6 months of returning from the course, more than one half of the graduates initiated actions related to curriculum development, teaching strategies, or educational administration. One third or more of the graduates modified their performance and program evaluation systems. Using a five-point scale, ratings of the course content ranged from 3.78 to 4.64 for 'value of topic' and from 3.77 to 4.76 for 'quality of presentation.' Items evaluated by the graduates on the end-of-course evaluation forms ranged from 7.8 to 8.7 on a nine-point scale. Similarly, Skeff et al. (1992) whose study aimed to foster change in the participants’ institutions, tracked dissemination activities following a month-long course and found that 67 participants trained more than 500 faculty and 200 students (in groups of six to 10) in their own settings. Immediately after the short courses, participants rated their own teaching performance on the seven educational categories taught in the seminars as they perceived it to be ‘currently’ (i.e., post-seminars) and ‘before the seminars’ (i.e., retrospectively). Statistically significant retrospective pre/post differences were found for all seven educational These significant differences represented changes in a positive direction, that is, towards improved teaching performance. Two other studies (Sheets & Henry, 1984, 1988), which relied on analysis of videotaped and simulated teaching sessions to document change, showed slightly continued improvements at four and nine months, although there is no statistical support for this claim.

Steinert et al. (2016) define a seminar as an intervention with multiple sessions which are spaced over time. Bland and Froberg (1982), De Witt et al. (1993) and Hewson et al (2001) all observed improvement in instructional skills such as clarifying expectations, checking learners’ understanding, providing feedback and tailoring instruction to learners’ needs. Bland and Froberg (1982) evaluated teachers’ perceptions of a faculty development program designed to increase faculty members research skills. They found that post-seminar, faculty members’ knowledge of the material presented in the seminar resulted in a statistically significant increase. Additionally, in their study, De Witt et al. (1993) evaluated the impact of the seminar on participants' knowledge of educational principles and on their assessment of a teaching vignette. They also solicited their participants' opinions about the effect of the program on their teaching. As part of the ongoing assessment and refinement of our program, they elicited participant evaluations of each session as well as of the overall program. Participants' knowledge of educational terms and principles was assessed using a questionnaire that was completed at the beginning of their first faculty development seminar. Eight months later, at the end of the basic series of seminars, the participants' knowledge was reassessed. The questionnaire used in the first year of our program was revised for subsequent years to better reflect program goals and actual content of the seminars. Trainees were asked to indicate their familiarity with 11 terms using a 4-point scale. All participants showed gains ranging from 6 to 33 points. The average gain was 7.1 points. Based on this self-report assessment, De Witt et al. reported that trainees indicated greater familiarity with, and use of, educational terms and principles after the basic program than before the basic program.

It was also found that seminars can influence student ratings of teachers’ behaviors. For example, Hewson (2000) evaluated a program which was comprised of a 12-hour course (focused on skills in precepting, bedside teaching, leading small-group discussions, giving lectures, designing curricula, and giving effective feedback); onsite coaching of teaching (on wards, in outpatient clinics, or in formal lectures); and innovative projects in clinical medical education. The evaluation of the program included satisfaction ratings, self-assessment of teaching competencies, and independent ratings of teaching effectiveness by the participants' trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows). Independent ratings by the participants' trainees revealed post-course improvements when compared with pre-course ratings and statistically significant improvements in comparisons with ratings of a computer-generated control group of non-participants. In two other studies, student ratings of teacher behavior were significantly improved after a seminar series in certain areas (e.g., specifying expectations and establishing effective teacher–student relationships) (Skeff & Stratos, 1985; Hewson et al., 2001).

Elliot et al. (1999) conducted a longitudinal (18 months of biweekly 1-hour meetings) faculty development program. Its activities followed an initial structured seminar series, and the ongoing meetings involved reviewing video tapes of participants’ teaching, enacting and debriefing role-plays, and a modified Balint group for medical educators. The researchers assessed the program’s process and outcomes using attendance, self-reported teaching behaviors, perceived program usefulness, educational administrative responsibilities, and qualitative analysis of audiotapes and session notes. Elliot et al., found that participants maintained high attendance during 18 months of meetings, and commented positively on the value of meetings over time and their role in fostering involvement in the institution’s teaching activities. Elliot et al., also reported that participants reported positive changes in attitudes toward teaching and in the use and understanding of educational terms, such as feedback. In terms of the Fellowship studies, Johnson and Zammit-Montebello (1990) found that, after an eight-month intensive program, fellowship participants felt that they had benefited by attitudinal shifts in professional self-worth and beliefs about primary care and health promotion. Both Johnson and Zammit-Montebello and Sheets (1985) found that participants demonstrated a gain in knowledge regarding problem-solving, teaching and communication skills throughout the term of a fellowship program which lasted for one academic year.

Amundsen and Wilson (2012) conducted their own systematic critical review of the literature on faculty development programs. However, instead of looking at specific interventions (workshops, short courses, seminars) they organized their results according to six ‘clusters’; the skills cluster, the method focus cluster, the reflection focus cluster, the institutional focus cluster and the action research or inquiry focus cluster (p. 97). The authors were motivated to look at the research on faculty development in a different way because of the fundamental question that is still unanswered, in their view, “…what are the features of educational development that make it effective?” (p. 91). They continue their critique by arguing, “the paucity of findings and the strikingly similar recommendations of all three reviews (Levinson-Rose & Menges, 1981; Steinert et al., 2006; Stes et al., 2010) led us to ponder whether they were asking the right question if their intention was to inform practice and further research” (p. 91). Their study included 137 articles focused on the following keywords: instructional development, faculty development, professional development, educational development, academic development, teaching development, higher education and post-secondary education. Table 2.2 demonstrates the outcome of the researchers conceptualization of the literature into the six ‘clusters’ mentioned above.

Table 2.2

Educational development clusters and associated elements of thinking

Note. From. “Are we asking the right questions?: A conceptual review of the educational development literature in higher education”. By Amundsen, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 90–126. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312438409

Amundsen and Wilson argue that one of the more substantive findings from the critical analysis of the literature was the idea of finding the “contextualized positioning” of the research (p.109). By this the authors mean the distinction between activities focusing on improving or enhancing an instructor's individual teaching practice versus activities that engage faculty in teaching enhancement as a socially situated practice. Researchers such as Boud (1999) and De’Eon et al. (2000) argue that a more localized strategy of faculty development may be more beneficial than the common practice of a more centralized faculty development office. Boud, for example, argues:

Most academic development takes place in locations where academics spend most of their time: departments, professional settings and research sites. It takes the form of exchanges with colleagues, interacting with students, working on problems, writing and associated activities. It is informal and not normally viewed as development. Nonetheless, it often has a more profound influence on staff than activities explicitly labeled as such. (p. 3)

In his study, Boud examined two types of faculty development programs that were situated within a specific academic department; a peer publication group and a peer teaching development group. The author reported positive outcomes by participants in both groups and noted a key takeaway was that the faculty development was seen as part of normal academic work rather than an external force that may be seen as not relevant to the faculty members’ immediate teaching needs or concerns. Furthermore, De’Eon et al. (2000) like Boud argue that teaching generally is best characterized as a type of social practice. The authors explained that social practices (such as parenting, being polite, and going to university) are “purposive, rational, moral, communal, and are identified by their activities” (p.154). Further, they argued that the communal aspect of teaching means, among other things, that the prevailing social norms of faculty at particular institutions of higher education have a large role to play in shaping the practice of teaching. To view teaching as a social practice, the authors argue, is to acknowledge, first and foremost, the expectations society has for teaching, or in other words, the particular purposes of teaching (see table 2.3). This understanding will then help to increase the contextualized positioning of faculty development programs.

Table 2.3

Teaching and Social Practices

From. “Teaching as a social practice: Implications for faculty development”. By D’Eon, M., Overgaard, V., & Rutledge, S. (2000). Advances in Health Sciences Education 5(13)151–162.

Boud et al. (1999), De’ Eon et al. (2000), Gregory and Jones (2009), and McAlpine et al. (2006) make the argument for facilitating faculty development programs within a socially situated practice. Moreover, Webster-Wright (2009) examined the current state of professional development programs and argued that most of what is currently used as professional development is over reliant on formal, didactic approaches which are “decontextualized and separated from engagement with authentic work experiences” (p. 703). In her study she examined 203 research papers on professional development in higher education in order to determine the focus of the research in the field. Webster-Wright found that the majority of the studies focused on program evaluation and content rather than on learning experiences. She continues her critique by stating that “despite decades of research into effective PL, little has changed in PD research and practice across most professions” (p.712). Amundsen and Wilson (2012) sum up the current state of the literature by pointing out that “we know more about how to design educational development initiatives to improve individual teaching practice but less about how this learning is actualized and embedded in the academic workplace” (p. 111). The literature reviewed revealed the desire of many researchers to explore the idea of how effective professional development can be when placed in a socially situated practice.

As this review of the literature demonstrates, the endeavor to improve teaching and learning within the academy has a long history. The amount of empirical evidence which supports the continued use of faculty development programs is also well documented. A gap that remains in the higher education literature, however, is the study of how faculty development centers can utilize social theories of learning, such as communities of practice and social network analysis to foster a more holistic and long-lasting focus on teaching within the academic profession. As noted above, Webster-Wright (2009) argued that most of what is currently used as professional development is over reliant on formal, didactic approaches which are “decontextualized and separated from engagement with authentic work experiences” (p. 703). Some questions remain as to how to establish teaching as a regularly discussed topic within departments and not the sole responsibility of a centralized group, which is always situated outside of a specific academic discipline or department.

In the literature reviewed, three models emerged as foundational to the exploration of knowledge creation and will help to inform the discussion on social learning and faculty development in higher education. Paavola et al. (2004) and Tsai et al. (2013) focused on three modes of knowledge creation, the knowledge spiral (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), the expansive learning framework (Engeström, 1999), and the knowledge building approach (Scardamalia and Bereiter 1994). In the following section these three models will be discussed, and the literature will be reviewed around the implementation of these models in higher education.

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Model of Knowledge Creation

The first model of knowledge creation which emerged from the literature reviewed is the seminal work by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, which provides insight into how Japanese companies work and most importantly, what enables the Japanese businesses to create new knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that there are two types of knowledge, namely explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. As explicit knowledge is often found in manuals and procedures, it is formal and systematic and easily communicated. On the other hand, tacit knowledge is highly personal as it is learned through experience only, it is “personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves tangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and the value system. Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that a fundamental principle in this model is an ontological framework of four levels of “entities” that operate in knowledge creation: the individual, the group, organizational and inter-organizational levels. Nonaka and Takeuchi posit that knowledge is created and transformed in an ascending process, or spiral, from the individual to level to the group and organizational level and finally between organizations. Their ‘knowledge spiral’ (see figure 2.5) is grounded in four types of knowledge conversion: (a) from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge, labeled socialization; (b) from tacit to explicit knowledge, called externalization; (c) from explicit-to-explicit knowledge, or combination; and from explicit to tacit, or internalization.

Figure 2.5

Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Knowledge Spiral

Note: From “The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press

According to Paavola et al., (2004), the knowledge creation spiral starts from socialization, sharing tacit knowledge and experiences at the group level. Close interaction with the group is needed in order to develop a common understanding and trust. In their model, Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that the basic source of innovation is tacit knowledge, which needs to be explicated in order to be transformed into knowledge which is useful for the group and for the entire organization.

Engestrom’s Model of Expansive Learning

Another model of knowledge creation that emerged from the literature reviewed was developed by Yrjo Engeström (1999). He created and developed innovative learning cycles in work teams by using the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and the theory of expansive learning to provide the framework for his model. Engeström argues that the central tenet of the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory is that human beings do not live in a vacuum but are embedded in their socio-cultural context, and that their behavior cannot be understood independently of that context. Engeström’s model of expansive learning in work teams is based on a learning cycle with seven stages in its ideal form (see figure 2.6). First, individual participants question and criticize certain existing practices. Second, they analyze the situation, including historical causes and “empirical inner relations of the activity system in question” (p.560). Third, the participants engage in modeling a new solution to the problematic situation, and then in the fourth stage, they examine the new model by experimenting to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the new model. Fifth, they implement the new model to explore practical applications and limitations and sixth they reflect on the new model and evaluate the process. Finally, they engage in consolidating the new practice in its new form. Engstrom and his colleagues have developed an intervention method called the “boundary-crossing laboratory” or “change laboratory” that is used in several types of workplaces, such as telecommunications companies, hospitals and schools.

Figure 2.6.

Engeström’s Model of Expansive Learning

Note: From “Perspectives on activity theory”. Cambridge University Press.

Bereiter’s Model of Knowledge Building

A third theory which emerged from the literature reviewed on knowledge creation is Bereiter’s (2002) model of knowledge building. Bereiter argued that the emergence of a knowledge society has given rise to a view of knowledge as a thing that can be systematically produced and shared among members of a community. His model of knowledge building refers to the ongoing process of creating and improving upon shared knowledge. The model consists of four main components:

Knowledge building discourse: The way individuals communicate and exchange ideas about the topic at hand.
Community knowledge: The collective knowledge of the group that is built through discourse.
Knowledge building principles: The set of principles that guide the group's knowledge building process, including principles such as "increase knowledge diversity" and "build on the ideas of others.”
Knowledge building scaffolds: The structures and tools that support the group's knowledge building process, such as brainstorming techniques, collaborative writing platforms, and feedback mechanisms (Bereiter, 2002).

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2006) argue that knowledge building, as an educational approach, focuses on the advancement of community knowledge, with individual learning as a by-product. In their view, students assume collective responsibility for advances in community knowledge, with support for taking charge at the highest levels, including problem definition, goal setting, monitoring advances, and setting work on a new and unexpected course. Those are all part of knowledge creation as a cultural practice. Because many other educational approaches do not engage students in this manner, although they are similar to knowledge building as “constructivist learning” and “inquiry learning” (Scardamalia & Bereiter 2006).

Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) also posit that knowledge creation is supported by Knowledge Building Environments (KBE) where “different worlds of knowledge work together into one coherent framework, while bringing innovation closer to the central work of the organization” (p. 270). Beyond continual sharing and learning, the community progresses together, where new ideas are developed, and members can always build onto each other where each advancement creates new advancements (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2003). In effective Knowledge Building Environments problems are identified, dialogue is sustained for future discussions, and constructive criticism and analyses are openly spoken about in order to identify current gaps and holes to strengthen the growth of new ideas. To represent the innovative and creative features that represent a knowledge creating community, Scardamalia (2002) proposed 12 principles which focus on real ideas and authentic problems (see Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7

Socio-Cognitive and Technological Determinants of Knowledge Building

Note: From “Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of Knowledge”. In B. Smith (Eds.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 76-98). Chicago: Open Court.

In Scardamalia’s conceptualization of knowledge building, community members work together to improve the quality and coherence of ideas. Ideas are valued and treated with respect and learners are given the opportunity to negotiate with others to solve the problem. Scardamalia argues that epistemic agency is emphasized, urging learners to negotiate the compatibility of personal insights with those of others, thereby fostering a dynamic exchange conducive to idea refinement. Additionally, she posits that constructive engagement with authoritative sources is highlighted, promoting a balanced approach that integrates respect for established knowledge with a critical interrogation of its limitations.

Bandura’s (1971) social learning theory “assumes that modeling influences produce learning principally through their informative functions and that observers acquire mainly symbolic representations of modeled activities rather than specific stimulus-response associations” (p. 6). Bandura argued that new behaviors can be acquired through the observation of others via the concept of modeling; that people can regulate their behavior in response to something they witness as an observation or engage in as a first- hand experience. Bandura (1977) argued that, if our learning relied solely on our own actions of trial and error, “it would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous” (Bandura, 1977, p. 22). Most human behavior is learned observationally. New behaviors are performed, and then on later instances, the coded information serves as a model for the observer’s performance (Bandura, 1977). This observation of learning, which includes cognitive and behavioral views, is also referred to as social learning. “Man’s capacity to learn by observation enables him to acquire large, integrated units of behavior by example without having to build up the patterns by tedious trial and error” (Bandura, 1977, p. 2), meaning we are able to learn by example. There are four components of social learning:

1. Attentional Processes - Something is selectively observed in the environment. Observers must pay attention to learn and perceive benefit. The process is influenced by characteristics and conduct of the model. “The people with whom one regularly associates, either through preference or through imposition, delimit the types of behaviors that will be repeatedly observed and hence learned most thoroughly” (Bandura, 1977, p. 24).

2. Retention Processes – The observer must recognize and remember the behavior in symbolic form. This process depends on an observer’s ability to code information. “Observational learning relies mainly upon two representational systems - imaginal and verbal” (Bandura, 1977, p. 25). Symbols serve as guides for performance.

3. Motor Reproduction – The observer converts symbolic representations into action; however, the observer must be physically and intellectually capable of producing said action. “Ideas are rarely transformed into correct action without error on the first attempt” (Bandura, 1977, p. 28). Corrective adjustments are usually necessary.

4. Motivational Processes – There is a distinction between acquisition and performance, in addition to the presence of reinforcement or punishment. “Among the countless responses acquired observationally, those behaviors that seem to be effective for others are favored over behaviors that are seen to have negative consequences” (Bandura, 1977, p. 28).

Based on these components, Bandura (1977) posits that a model that repeatedly demonstrates desired responses, instructs others to reproduce the behavior, prompts them physically when they fail, and then rewards them when they succeed, may eventually produce matching responses in most people. Bandura argues that social learning does not guarantee that the observer will exhibit behaviors like the model, alough he does believe that we are able to learn by example and that there are numerous factors to consider when an observer fails to match the behavior of a model. Bandura argues this failure may result from “Not observing the relevant activities, inadequately coding modeled events for memory representation, failing to retain what was learned, physical inability to perform, or experiencing insufficient incentives” (p. 29).

The literature reviewed suggests that there are important connections between social learning and improved professional practice. Researchers such as Goddard et al. (2007) and Pil and Leana (2009) argue that there are strong positive connections between faculty social learning and improved instructional development. Gast et al. (2017) posits that when faculty partake in interactions in which they can discuss teaching with others, they become closer to their colleagues, pick up new pedagogical knowledge, and often change their teaching approaches to accommodate what they have learned. Manouchehri (2002) argues that whether these kinds of interactions are fostered through organized “peer coaching” exchanges “professional learning communities” “communities of practice” or through more private, ad hoc discussions with colleagues or mentors they allow faculty to iteratively improve instructional methods that can boost student achievement.

Professional learning communities emerged from the literature reviewed as a way of putting into practice the ideas of social learning within an organization. According to Stoll (2010), there is increasing international consensus that the term professional learning community broadly refers to an inclusive and mutually supportive group of people with a “collaborative, reflective, and growth-oriented approach toward investigating and learning more about their practice in order to improve students’ learning” (p.151). Mintzes et al. (2013) define a professional learning community as, “a group of teachers... meeting together on a regular basis to improve student learning” (p. 1204).

McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) argue that not all strong professional communities have an orientation to practice conducive to change or even concerned with improvement, and Little (1999) has distinguished between schools with strong teacher communities in which the professional culture is either that of ‘traditional community’ (where work is coordinated to reinforce traditions) and ‘teacher learning community’ (where teachers collaborate to reinvent practice and share professional growth). Westheimer (1999) highlights five features most commonly identified by contemporary theorists exploring community: shared beliefs and understandings; interaction and participation; interdependence; concern for individual and minority views; and meaningful relationships. Additionally, Dufour (2004), an early proponent of professional learning communities for instructional development, suggested they focus on learning, development of culture, and ensuring results. Additionally, a commonality of professional learning communities, according to Wenger, et al. (2002), is that they afford professionals the opportunity to share practice concerns and increase their skills and expertise. Since professional learning communities are knowledge-based with dynamic social interactions they have the potential to support relationships by cultivating collaboration, emotional support, and shared understandings of diverse perspectives.

In the literature reviewed on social learning, Communities of Practice emerge as a major focus of research in both K-12 and higher education. Wegner’s (1998) defines the essential elements of a Community of Practice as a cohesive community forming around a shared domain of knowledge, fostering a sense of common identity and social fabric, while collectively developing and refining practices to excel within that domain. In later research, Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) describe communities of practice as:

Groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis … (As they) accumulate knowledge, they become informally bound by the value that they find in learning together. Over time, they develop a unique perspective on their topic as well as a body of common knowledge, practices, and approaches. They also develop personal relationships and established ways of interacting. They may even develop a common sense of identity. They become a community of practice” (p. 4).

Communities of Practice are informed by Bandura’s (1971) social learning theory which argues for moving the focus of learning from the individual to a cognitive process that takes place, or is situated, in a social context. Vygotsky (1978) made a major contribution to social learning theory by arguing for the importance of social relations and supporting learners to relate what they already know with what they could know, thereby influencing educational approaches and underscoring the importance of learning in a social environment. Furthermore, Mercieca (2016) provides an extended discussion on the social-cultural underpinning of Communities of Practice. Mercieca argues that Vygotsky saw social relations as an important component of developing higher-level thinking, and should not artificially separate intellectual and social activities: “Rather, we should conceive of the individual and his environment as factors that mutually shape each other in a spiral process of growth” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 22).

Lave and Wenger (1991) investigated the apprenticeship model of learning and showed that, rather than the novice apprentice learning from the master craftsman, learning took place through a complex set of social relationships. A whole social network, including other apprentices, supported the learning journey within the particular practice field, and eventually led to recognition as a fully-fledged member of the Community, hence the term ‘Community of Practice’. Wenger (1998) further explained that the Community members have valuable local knowledge and strategies to share with their colleagues which is highlighted by the emphasis on the practice of the participants, the sharing of tacit knowledge, and the role of apprentices, who learn the craft of their masters through observation, imitation and practice. In recent years, much of the research and Communities of Practice literature has moved from this early identification of Communities of Practice in craft ‘training’, to study of Communities of Practice in industry, government, education, and international funding agencies. As noted by Wenger et al. (2002) early attempts at knowledge management originated from information technology departments that tended to confuse knowledge and information. Huge resources have been devoted to building (often unused) information systems and databases. These can capture explicit information as knowledge ‘objects’; however, tacit knowledge is “an accumulation of experience” that continues to grow with everyday experience, and people (in this case—research supervisors) are the living repositories of the knowledge, which can be shared within the Communities of Practice Wenger et al. argued that tacit aspects of knowledge are often the most valuable and sharing requires extensive personal contact and trust, and the interaction and informal learning as experienced in Communities of Practice As a theory for organizing or conceptualizing a instructional development program in higher education, the literature reveals that communities of practice are a wide-spread yet contested strategy. Hildreth and Kimble (2008) take a helpful approach in looking at the characteristics of a community of practice. Rather than seeking a specific definition, they suggest that Communities of Practice is an umbrella term for groups that generally share most of the following features:

• grow informally based on a need;

• share common ground;

• have voluntary memberships;

• share a common purpose or goal;

• are fluid and tend to evolve over time, and

• are driven by internal motivation.

They further propose that relationships are “…key to developing the trust and identity that define the CoP…” (2008, p. xii). Additionally, as Caldwell (2008) argues, a Community of Practice usually originates somewhat organically, as participants recognize a commonality of interest and identify shared purposes. Knowledge and resource sharing and problem solving are also features that seem to be common to Communities of Practice.

Support for Professional Development

In the literature reviewed on communities of practice in higher education, a theme that emerged was the increased support for professional development opportunities. For example, O’Sullivan and Irby (2011, 2014), O’Keefe et al. (2009), Simpson et al. (2004), Armstrong et al. (2003) and Lown et al. (2009) all report positive effects of building a faculty development community program on teaching and learning across many areas of professional development. For O’Sullivan and Irby, their interest in researching communities of practice stemmed from their desire to change the paradigm around faculty development programs. Both O’Sullivan and Irby and Webster-Wright were motivated to research the phenomenon of how professionals learn, including the use of critical reflection and learning to teach in the classroom. As O’Sullivan and Irby argue, “This perspective highlights the importance of support for professional development in the workplace, connection with others in the settings in which teaching occurs and time for learning with the work setting” (p. 422). In their paper, they argue for a new model of faculty development which incorporates both the faculty development community and the workplace community and interaction between and across various actors in the workplace (see Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8

Faculty Development Community Model

Note: From “Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning”. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739

Simpson et al. (2004) found that through a community of practice program which focused on a train-the-trainer model the faculty development program achieved its objectives, with participants leading workshops, impacting faculty development infrastructure, advancing their own careers, and being strategically positioned in leadership roles with the skills to improve primary care education in the ambulatory setting. A specific outcome of the program was the leadership and personal growth of the participants. In aggregate, 44% of scholars reported regional and national leadership activities (e.g., elected officer of national or regional pediatric organizations). As an additional outcome of this program, the scholars formed and continue to lead the APA Special Interest Group on Faculty Development. Thirty-two percent of the scholars were appointed to a medical school or departmental leadership position (e.g., interim department chair, associate dean, director of medical student or residency program education) and/or promoted to the next faculty rank. Track-specific differences reflected the level of leadership position obtained or level of promotion with the leadership track participants reporting the more senior positions. More than half of the scholars (53%) reported program-related/supported outcomes within their profession/career development: recognized as having expertise in the area, a stronger sense of identity as a pediatric educator, and increased national recognition. Twenty percent of the scholars explicitly cited that the most important outcome of the program was the development of a regional/national network of colleagues, typified by the following scholar who wrote, ‘‘I now have a national group of colleagues, who have enriched my professional and personal life’’ (p.108).

O’Keefe et al. (2009) created a program of faculty peer observation where participants asked a trusted colleague to observe their teaching. Feedback on good practice and suggestions for improvement were sought, and colleague observations were guided by specific learning objectives articulated by participants. Following the teaching observation/s, the colleague observer and the participant discussed the extent to which the participant’s learning objectives had been achieved. A written summary of mutually agreed outcomes was prepared. Program evaluation included an anonymous participant questionnaire and focus group discussions. Forty-two staff enrolled in the program with 23 completing all elements and participating in the evaluation. Participants reported increased confidence in teaching, confirmation of good practice, exposure to new ideas, and a greater sense of institutional support and collegiality.

Lown et al. (2009) conducted a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with 40 faculty from multiple disciplines who, between 1999 and 2005, had completed a yearlong fellowship in medical education.. Study participants described post-fellowship changes in knowledge, self-perceptions, and behaviors and institutional changes that resulted from education projects. With a foundation of principles and skills, the Fellows’ confidence and identity as educators were strengthened by their sense of self-efficacy, others’ perceptions of their credibility, and support from a community of peers and mentors. This change affected the graduates’ professional career trajectories. The researchers concluded community building and networking, and emphasis on self-reflection and awareness are essential elements of developing faculty members’ professional development.

Sense of Isolation and Stress

Another theme that emerged from literature reviewed is that communities of practice can have an impact on the reduction of faculty members’ sense of isolation and stress. According to Sorcinelli (1992), pretenure faculty are at risk for stress-related health problems and not acquiring tenure. As reasons, they cite a lack of community, the disconnect between their personal and academic lives, and incomprehensible tenure systems. In a study which implemented a year-long faculty learning community at Miami University, Cox (2004) concluded that the pretenure faculty in MU’s Teaching Scholars Faculty Learning Commmunity were tenured at a significantly higher rate than MU faculty who were not members. The author argues that the shared talk and advice about how to achieve tenure, reduce stress, and integrate family and academic worlds may have been one cause of this increase in tenure.

Both Simpson et al (2004) and Vogel (2009) found that Communities of Practice help to reduce isolation and stress of faculty members. Simpson et al., whose study featured the development of a nationwide Faculty Development Scholars Program, found that more than 20% of the scholars cited the development of a network with participants, which then led to the development of a special interest group on faculty development as the most important program outcome. Additionally, 65% of the longitudinal interventions and 50% of the seminar series, which extended over time, reported the building of a faculty development community. Vogel (2009) found that isolation did not emerge as a major structural characteristic of the professors teaching related collegial network. A study of faculty members’ social networks found that 40 percent of the survey participants are integrated in a community of teaching practice, and only 20 percent have less than three strong or weak ties with colleagues within the sample. Vogel argues that had the sample been larger and included all professors the share of internally isolated individuals may have been lower still.

Faculty Identity

Another theme that emerged from the literature was the relationship between communities of practice and faculty identity. Armstrong et al. (2003) studied the effects on teaching and learning of participants in the Harvard Macy Program for Physician Educators, a rigorous and selective instructional development program requiring small group collaboration and a large individual pedagogical reform project. The results of their study indicated that there is strong correlation between a community of practice, including the length of time post-program that participants remained in contact with each other and the participants’ perceptions that they were able to transfer program insights to other settings. As the researchers argued, “The community of practice continues the conversation for individuals to support further development of image and skills, and to continue the energy initiated in the program” (p. 707). Additionally, Clark et al. (2021) documented a reflective self-study conducted by four professors engaged in a community of practice while team-teaching a linked pair of EdD seminars on action research at Arizona State University. According to the authors’ analysis of post-hoc reflective accounts and contemporaneous notes, it was revealed that a general pattern of gradual transformation by the teaching team members. The professors moved from anxious concern about appearing competent to growing confidence and appreciation for the potential of a community of practice to provide significant professional benefits to students and faculty. The researchers note that salutary features of reflective team teaching in a community of practice persist in participants’ subsequent teaching practice. Reported benefits include eagerness for team teaching, increased openness to pedagogical suggestions from peers, comfort with being observed by colleagues while teaching, and willingness to revise plans when initial plans and practices are not working effectively for students Clark et al. (2021).

Another theory which emerged from the literature reviewed on social learning is social capital theory. Bourdieu (1986) provided one of the earliest conceptualizations of social capital, embedding it within his broader theory of cultural and economic capital. For Bourdieu, social capital represents the social resources accessible to individuals or groups through their social networks. He emphasized the role of social capital in reproducing and perpetuating social inequality, as those with greater social capital could leverage their networks to maintain power and privilege. Bourdieu argued for the importance of understanding social capital within the broader context of social structure and power dynamics. Coleman (1988) focused on the instrumental value of social capital in generating human capital and facilitating collective action within groups. He emphasized the role of social networks in creating opportunities for individuals to access resources such as information, support, and cooperation. Coleman conceptualized social capital as a form of social obligation, where individuals accumulate "credits" through reciprocal exchanges within their networks. He also identified social norms and trust as key components of social capital, shaping individuals' behavior and interactions within their social circles. Putnam (2000) extended the concept of social capital to the community level, emphasizing its role in fostering social cohesion and collective action. He distinguished between bonding social capital, which strengthens ties within homogeneous groups, and bridging social capital, which connects diverse individuals or groups across social boundaries. Putnam documented the decline of social capital in the United States and its implications for civic engagement and democratic participation. He highlighted the importance of civic associations, such as clubs, churches, and community groups, in nurturing social capital and building social trust. Burt (2000) offered a more individual-focused perspective on social capital, emphasizing the advantages of brokerage networks and structural holes in accessing diverse resources. He argued that individuals positioned at the nexus of different social clusters, known as "brokers," have a competitive advantage in accessing information, innovation, and opportunities. Burt's conceptualization of social capital highlights the role of network structure in shaping individuals' access to resources and their ability to navigate social environments effectively.

Lin (1999,2001) grounds this theory in Social Network Analysis by conceiving of social capital as resources embedded in social networks that can be accessed through social ties. Lin argues that social capital is not possessed by individual actors, at least not in the common sense of the term. Instead, social capital flows through social ties between friends, coworkers, family members, discussion partners, and others and directly or indirectly provides material or non-material resources like information, support, knowledge, advice, prestige, or wealth (Lin, 2001). These social resources, in turn, allow one with social ties to act in self-interested ways that help him or her accrue real benefits, with some important caveats. Social capital is neither unlimited nor wholly positive. Instead, it is unequally distributed from individual to individual (Bourdieu 1986; Lin 2001) and by no means, as Bourdieu (1986) wrote, a natural... or even a social given.

Lin (2001) models the process in three stages defined by embeddedness, use, and return. During the first stage, preconditions, and precursors help one develop (or not) beneficial social ties that, in the second stage, allow an individual to access and mobilize social capital. In the third stage, the successful individual receives beneficial returns from this social capital deployment.

The literature reviewed suggests that there is a correlation between increased social capital and more effective teacher professional development. Baker-Doyle and Yoon (2011), for example argue that even though teachers may gather information at one-off professional development workshops, it is through their informal social networks that the information is interpreted, shared, compiled, contextualized, and sustained. Modipane and Themane (2014) similarly argue that one-day workshops that teachers attend over a weekend appear to be inadequate, and that teachers’ social capital is critical in the implementation of curriculum development processes.

The literature reviewed also suggests that teachers value and benefit from participation in social networks in and out of class, with teachers from within and outside their schools (Pedder et al., 2005). In a study of teacher networks in Philadelphia, Schiff et al. (2015) found a positive correlation between networking time as a proxy for social capital and high-performing schools. The study also showed that even though teachers value and participate in numerous formal and informal networks, both in and out of school, more than half of the network opportunities are formalized. Two-thirds of them appear within the teacher ’s own school. Research findings suggest a significant spill-over effect of teachers' involvement in formalized networking on their engagement in informal interactions. Schiff et al. (2015) and Woodland & Mazur (2019) indicate that teachers who actively participate in strong formal networks within schools are more inclined to engage in informal networks outside of school settings. Coburn & Russel (2008) demonstrate that district policy mediated by school leaders can influence the structure and depth of interaction within teachers' social networks which has an impact on the creation of social capital among teachers. Woodland & Mazur (2019) illustrate how social network analysis facilitates the identification of isolates in teacher teams, aiding the establishment of professional learning communities that enhance access to social capital resources across schools and districts. Minckler (2014) found a positive correlation between transformational leadership and teacher social capital, suggesting that effective leadership structures can facilitate the creation and utilization of social capital among teacher groups. Spillane et al. (2018) investigated how teacher performance predicts interactions, revealing that high-performing teachers sought more advice, resulting in enhanced performance. Wilhelm et al. (2016) found that teachers were more inclined to seek advice from colleagues proficient in improving student achievement. Nisar & Maroulis (2017) observed that teachers strategically identify and seek out peers possessing sought-after knowledge, potentially altering social networks in response to improvement initiatives. Chapman et al. (2016) and Dudley (2013) point to the benefits of social capital in professional development models such as collaborative inquiry and lesson study, demonstrating improvements in teacher social capital and student achievement. Similarly, Osmond-Johnson (2017) showcases how a peer leadership model fosters teacher capital and aids in their transition into leadership roles.Online communities also serve as platforms for professional development and social capital building, as evidenced by studies by Ranieri et al. (2012), Rehm & Notten (2016), Hu et al. (2018), Fetter et al. (2012), Tseng & Kuo (2014), Booth & Kellogg (2015), and Farooq et al. (2007). These communities facilitate resource sharing, support, and sustainment of users, thereby enhancing professional networks and social capital.

This review of the literature has shown that the interest in improving the quality of teaching and learning at the university level has increased significantly. Additionally, learning through networks has been acknowledged to lead to improvement and transformation of teaching practice. A gap that emerged through the review of the literature, however, is the specific focus of network analysis on teaching and learning in the academy, rather than on compulsory education. Much research in higher education has also tended to focus on the effects of top-down approaches rather than bottom-up network processes. Current research also has not explored in what ways personal characteristics, namely age, gender, experience level, disciplinary domain, or institutional culture influence academics’ networking behaviors.

Additionally, there are gaps in the literature on, for example, the quality of faculty conversations about teaching and learning and academic standards (student achievement or faculty evaluations). Also, more research is needed which attempts to show how departments can enhance social network ties or how particular conditions associate with the development of stronger teaching related faculty networks.

Finally, there have been no social network analysis studies related to instructional developed conducted at universities in the United Arab Emirates.

This literature review has presented both the theory and empirical research on the importance of social learning and social networks in faculty development in higher education. Some areas for further research include the relation between faculty social networks and the wider departmental and institutional culture of what Trowler and Cooper (2002) highlighted as the concept of teaching and learning regimes. Additionally, the investigation of faculty members' conversations about teaching and learning and how those conversations could be influenced may have important implications for faculty developers in institutions of higher education.

This chapter will discuss the theoretical concepts which emerged from the review of the literature on faculty development in higher education, namely, Social Learning Theory, Social Capital Theory and Social Network Analysis. These three theoretcial frameworks have been used by researchers to recognize and measure the effects that a teacher’s social network has on faculty development. The main theory which underpins this chapter and the study design is social learning theory which has also been used by researchers to argue for a shift away from individualistic faculty development interventions toward a more social perspective. Additionally, in recent years, educational scholars using Social Network Analysis, for example, have used this framework to map relationships or ‘social ties’ in order to better understand how interactions influence behavior (Wasserman and Faust, 1994).

Q1: What is the relationship between institutional conditions, social network ties, and the development of teaching related faculty networks?

Q2: What effect do personal characteristics (age, gender, experience level, discipline) have on one’s social network ties?