This study was conducted with grant money from the Office of the Dean, Plymouth State College, the New Hampshire College and University Council, and the Social Science and Education Departments at Plymouth State College
 

  Faculty representing thirteen institutions of higher learning in
  New Hampshire were surveyed relative to their perceived
  importance of and satisfaction with faculty development
  activities specific to pedagogy. The findings suggest possibly
  low general faculty priority for pedagogy,  greater interest in
  teaching improvement by younger and mid-career faculty,
  differing views on the value of teaching by faculty and
  administrators, the potential benefits of a campus Teaching
  and Learning Center, the importance of faculty input into
  faculty development efforts,  and the need for more leadership
  involvement by senior faculty, closer collaboration among
  disciplines and between recognized excellent teachers and college
  administrators, and greater institutional support for faculty
  development.

Introduction

Knowledge is, and should be, the primary focus of higher education. It is imparted by way of teaching and created through research. Historically, these two endeavors have not received equal attention and value. While there is an emerging emphasis on the importance of teaching, it still has not attained equal status with research (Anderson, 1988; Menges,1991; Watson & Grossman, 1994). Because of this imbalance, the skill of teaching appears to stalled in its potential to be fully realized (Seldin, 1995). To highlight this issue, Olsen & Simmons (1994) found that "Less than a quarter of faculty read articles or books on teaching, less than a fifth attend workshops or seminars on teaching, and less than 10% asked fellow faculty to observe their teaching" (p. 249). Shea and Knoedler (1994) voiced concern about faculty indifference to improving teaching. They saw poor time management as an underlying factor of this situation. Aleamoni (1997) saw a paucity of research in the area of instructional evaluation as a reason why teaching improvement is not more readily undertaken as an institutional priority.

Perhaps more parity between teaching and research may never be achieved, but the price for not achieving greater approximation between them may be one that colleges cannot afford. The competition for students and the higher costs of education will require a reordering of priorities. Presently, there are many people in higher education who are increasingly recognizing that the quality of the delivery of knowledge ensures its usefulness and application in wider areas of human concern from parenting to politics. Also, as education becomes more available to more diverse groups of students, it is imperative that the ways different people learn are adequately addressed. For example, we are now aware of and acknowledging multiple intelligences, individual differences, different learning styles, emotional intelligence, and cultural diversity. There are also different ways of knowing for men and women, and unique perspectives brought by traditional and nontraditional age students, military veterans, gay and lesbian students, and students of diverse racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds, and social classes. Many faculty members lack knowledge about ways to accommodate such diversity. Traditional methods of teaching with which faculty are comfortable have become outmoded because they limit rather than promote an understanding of the subjects we teach and they severely restrict the audiences for which the material is directed.  Teaching, in order to be effective, must move away from a monologue directed toward a narrow echelon of students. It needs to be taken seriously as a field of study and a focus of further development. To do otherwise may contribute to the decline of higher education.

Davis (1993) provided strong arguments for the renewal of interest in teaching and cited several reasons why teaching needs to be taken more seriously. He also discussed societal changes that warrant a greater sense of urgency in its improvement. Because pedagogy represents the major vehicle of delivering knowledge, highly effective teaching is able to accomplish several things. First, it leads to a greater depth and scope of understanding by which students can make connections within the subjects, across subjects, between the subject and their lives, and between the subject and the world around them. Basically, students learn that knowledge does not exist in a vacuum. It has a past, present and future. Second, students learn to appreciate knowledge in varied subjects. It becomes part of them, especially if it is imparted by an enthusiastic, engaging, and knowledgeable teacher who exquisitely models the craft of teaching (Palmer, 1998). In this regard (based upon personal experience), many students have changed their majors and their lives due in large part to a particular teacher. For these students, the subject matter was initially less important. Third, students can apply the knowledge to their own lives as well as to the lives of others. In this way knowledge becomes an organic phenomenon as it continuously roots, spreads and grows. Simply stated, as our teaching improves, our students will not only learn more of the material, but also they will learn it better (Davis, 1993).

As our own teaching improves, so does our learning in a constant and progressive cycle. Ironically, it may be that teachers who are rated as doing well in the classroom tend to strive to improve while teachers who are rated as less able are content with their current practices. The benefits of continued improvement in teaching can add immeasurably to the current lives of our students, to their careers, and, ultimately to the community, society and planet. As our society transforms from a "me" oriented to a "we" oriented one, and service to others (service learning) become integrated into our courses, the value and effectiveness of education will likely be enhanced. Cross (1987) made this point well when she asserted that "What is taught is important but how it is taught makes the difference between a life long learner and grade grubber, between enthusiasm for learning and indifference to it, between an educated student and a credentialed one...There is very little attention given to the potential impact of thousands of small classroom reforms that might add up to real and substantive change" (p.3).

Many have opinions on what it will require to give teaching its due in the world of higher education but there is little research done to give this movement impetus. Blackburn, Lawrence, Bieber, and Trautvetter (1991) found measures of faculty perception that were strongly related to the effort faculty give to teaching: 1) faculty perceptions of institutional expectations regarding teaching effort, 2) their own perceptions of other professors’ commitment to teaching, 3) the existence of support services, and 4) consensus on curriculum. They also saw an instructional development center as having the potential to positively impact the quality of teaching variables that motivate faculty to improve their teaching. In their research, Ferren and Mussell (1987) found that the very existence of a faculty development program helped to improve collegiality and morale. This was due to faculty members meeting and discussing common areas of concern with other faculty members they had not previously known. Green, Millard, Sine, & Vry (1995) reported on a collaborative effort among the library, the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, and the Instructional Technology Center to assist faculty with learning to use information technology. As a result of this process, new alliances were created among groups who support faculty development in the area of information technology.

As important as a teaching and learning center (Paulson & Feldman, 1995) and faculty development program (Gitken & Sorcenelli, 1995) may be, they may (by themselves) be insufficient to make a substantive impact on the overall quality of instruction on a given campus. Their ability to make a difference is limited unless a systemic perspective is also considered. If the climate of the college is supportive of faculty development, faculty members will more likely be motivated to contribute to and utilize these services (Paulson & Feldman,1995; Green, et al., 1995; Pastore, 1995; Armour, 1995). Olsen and Simons (1994) emphasized the point that an environment of mutual respect and openness must prevail as a prerequisite condition to improve undergraduate instruction. In discussing the needs of new faculty members, who are under stress from various sources, Anderson (1988) underscored the importance of providing them with concrete assistance but he also warned that genuine gains in college teaching improvement would not occur until the campus climate clearly rewards teaching and places it on a par with scholarly research and publication.

Much attention is now being given to the importance of teaching (Graf, Albright, & Wheller,1992). It is an area that has been neglected for too long. The emergence of Centers of Teaching and Learning across the country provide strong testimony to this trend. When current faculty members are rejuvenated and when new faculty are set up for success, they will more likely become the kind of teachers that not only improve learning but also inspire public admiration for higher education. Good teachers are made, not born. Our efforts can make a difference.

The current study was undertaken in order to determine how faculty members across all of the four-year degree granting colleges throughout New Hampshire perceived faculty development in the specific area of pedagogy. Specifically, the study sought to determine the degree to which faculty members saw faculty development programs as effective or ineffective, the problems they saw with them, the elements about them that they saw as helpful and positive, and the ways these programs could be improved such as relevant content and structure. This information was sought in order to shed more light on faculty development related to pedagogy with the hope that it will move to the forefront of institutional reform and culminate in improved student recruitment, retention, learning, success, and satisfaction.

Method

 The mailed survey instrument was designed to gather data regarding faculty and institutional demographic profiles as well as information regarding types of, perceived importance of, and satisfaction with, faculty development activities related to pedagogy at the faculty member’s institution.  There were a total of eight demographic items including the highest degree offered at the institution, years as a faculty member at that institution, faculty rank and highest degree attained.  The remaining twenty one items were a combination of open and close ended questions regarding faculty development activities related to pedagogy.  The questions regarding perceived importance and satisfaction were rated on a five point Likert type scale with 1 = extremely unimportant and 5 = extremely important and 1 = extremely dissatisfied and 5 = extremely satisfied.
 The questions about types of faculty development activities related to pedagogy grouped types of activities into 7 discrete categories: no intervention, faculty teaching academy/center/institute, mentoring, orientation session(s), support groups, guest speakers and workshops.  The series of questions regarding perceived importance of teaching quality addressed the areas of importance of quality teaching to the respondent, colleagues, administration, and the impact of quality teaching on class attendance, student attrition rates, student performance, faculty morale, faculty turnover, public perception of the institution and growth in numbers of majors.  The questions regarding satisfaction addressed issues of the quantity and quality of faculty development activities related to pedagogy sponsored by the respondent’s institution, quality of the respondent’s teaching ability and the quality of the respondent’s work life.

Sample

 A total of 1,876 faculty were identified as potential participants in the study.This sampling frame list was furnished by the New Hampshire College and University Council and represented the total faculty employed at the 13 institutions of higher education in the state which granted four year degrees. These colleges consisted of four public sector institutions and nine private institutions. Surveys were distributed to the Academic Dean’s office at each participating institution. The Dean’s office mailed the surveys to all members of the faculty.  Faculty members were sent a cover letter attached to the surveys informing them that participation was strictly voluntary. It also included a stamped and addressed return envelope to assure confidentiality of the response. No personal identifying data was available on the survey. An institutional code key was placed on the survey for tracking purposes.

 A total of 334 responses were received which represents a response rate of 17.8%.  This relatively low response rate suggests that faculty development activities related to pedagogy may not be perceived by many faculty members as an area of importance or concern.  This will be discussed more in the Findings section.  Two of the smaller institutions surveyed did not yield any responses which lowers the actual number of participating institutions to eleven.

Analysis

 The data set was analyzed using MiniTab and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Norusis, 1993).  Frequency data was produced to offer raw counts and percentages on all items in the survey. Also used in analysis were cross tabulations of selected items in order to observe how responses clustered in different response choices. Mean and median scores were calculated on the ordinal measures that ranked importance and satisfaction.  These scores were examined to determine if any differences in ratings were based on the presence or absence of a faculty teaching Academy/Center/Institute.  Further, because of the ordinal nature of specific variables, as well as skewed distributions of these variables, nonparametric statistics were generated to determine associations and differences between specified variables.  Specifically, correlation analyses were generated to determine the level of association between the importance of teaching quality to administration and importance of teaching to the respondent, the quality of the respondent's teaching, and the quality of the respondent's work life.  Finally, Mann-Whitney U analyses were generated to determine whether significant differences existed between institutions with and without a faculty teaching Academy/Center/Institute on importance and satisfaction variables.
 The qualitative and open-ended items were grouped into logical categories for coding.  Several items on the types of faculty development activities related to pedagogy were collapsed into logical groupings in order to reflect development activity categories.  Item 9a (No faculty development intervention) remained a separate item as did item 9b (Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institution.  Items 9c (Mentoring) and 9e (Support Groups) were collapsed into a new item 9c and items 9d (Orientation Session(s), 9f (Guest Speakers) and 9g (Workshop(s)) were collapsed into a new item 9d.

Findings

 The demographic profile of the respondents indicated that the majority were from institutions which granted doctoral degrees (54%, n=182).  Institutions which granted up to master’s degrees comprised 25% (n=85) of the respondents.   A total of 18% (n=59) responded that the highest degree offered at their institution was a four year degree.  3% of the 334 participants did not respond to this item.

 It is interesting to note that the two largest institutions in the survey, although they produced the greatest percentages of respondents in the survey, produced the lowest percentage of returned surveys compared to the total number of surveys mailed to their institutions.  The factor of a high priority assigned to research at these institutions may be contributing to this statistic.  This issue will be further addressed in the conclusions section.
 Of those who responded to the gender question, 62% (n=207) were male and 37% (n=124) were female.  One percent of the total participants did not respond to this item.

The age breakdown of faculty who responded to the survey makes one wonder whether younger faculty (under 45 years old, 28%, n=94) and mid-career faculty (ages 45-54, 38%, n=127) are more concerned with the topic of faculty development activities related to pedagogy than their faculty colleagues ages 55 and over (33%, n=110).  There was a total of  1% of participants who did not answer this item.

Regarding faculty rank, 34% (n=115) were Professor, 35% (n=116) were Associate Professor and 30% (n=100) were Assistant Professor rank or lower. One percent of the participants did not respond to this item.  A total of 97% (n=324) were full-time faculty status;  2% (n=7) were part-time faculty.  One percent did not respond to this item.
With regard to length of time at their institution, 51% (n=171) indicated 10 or more years.  Twenty percent (n=68) were employed at their institution for 7 to 10 years and 27% (n=91) worked at their institution for under 7 years.  Two percent of participants did not respond to this item.

 The overwhelming majority of respondents (81%, n=269) possessed doctoral degrees.  Eighteen percent (n=60) had Master’s degrees.  There were two respondents with Bachelor’s degrees (1%) and 1% of participants did not respond to this item.
 A total of 93% of respondents (n=309) indicated that there were some forms of faculty development activity related to pedagogy being conducted at their institution.  The remaining 7% (n=25) stated there was no intervention of this type at their institution.Sixty percent (n=201) responded that there was not a Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institute on their campus.  The remaining 40% (n=133) indicated that such an Academy/Center/Institute does exist on their campus.

 Upon examination of the rating scales for importance of selected items, an interesting difference is found between perceived importance of teaching quality for   respondents themselves and their perception of its importance for the administration. Ninety-seven percent (n=325) rated personal perception of teaching quality as important or extremely important. Ratings for perceived importance of teaching quality for the administration resulted in 80%, (n=267) rating this as important or extremely important.  These differing perceptions between faculty and administration suggest that faculty view teaching quality as more important than do administrators.  Similarly, the rating for perceived importance of teaching quality to colleagues (87%, n=290) as important or extremely important had a 10% lower rating than the ratings for importance of teaching quality for the respondents.

 There was a range of perception regarding how important teaching quality was in impacting selected variables.  The two variables with the highest ratings were student class attendance (88%, n=294 rated as important or extremely important) and student performance (90%, n=299 rated as important or extremely important).  Mid-range ranking included impact of teaching quality on student attrition (77%, n=257 rated important or extremely important) and impact of teaching quality on public perception of the institution (79%, n=265 rated important or extremely important).  Lower range ranking included impact of teaching quality on growth in numbers of majors (72%, n=239 rated as important or extremely important) and impact on faculty morale (71%, n=237 rated as important or extremely important).

 It is interesting to observe that faculty don’t appear to clearly connect student performance and attendance with attrition.  This is an area where, because of the multivariate factors which impact attrition, more in depth research is needed to assess the weight of quality teaching related to this critical outcome variable.

 Finally, the low end rating for examining the impact of teaching quality on selected outcomes was for the variable faculty turnover (45%, n=150 rated as important or extremely important).  The difference found between rating scores for importance of teaching quality is remarkable.  It may indicate many remain at institutions for a variety of reasons including research being a priority over teaching.  Most importantly it may suggest that institutions lacking an ideology which holds teaching quality in the highest esteem, tend to have many faculty remaining in their jobs despite a lack of dedication to quality teaching.
 The other rating scale used in the survey measured respondent satisfaction levels on a five-point scale.  The first two ratings were regarding satisfaction with quantity and quality of faculty development activities regarding pedagogy sponsored by their institution.  Regarding quantity of activities, 40% (n=131) rated this item as satisfied or extremely satisfied.  For quality of activities, 40% (n=131) rated this item as satisfied or extremely satisfied.

 Regarding satisfaction with one’s own teaching abilities, 84% (n=281) responded either satisfied or extremely satisfied.  It is important to note that this satisfaction rating is 13% lower than the importance ranking for quality of teaching for the respondents’ personally.  This difference in scores makes one consider that without enhancement of faculty development activities related to pedagogy, the gap between perceived importance of teaching quality and satisfaction with one’s own abilities may further widen.  Related to this may be the ratings of satisfaction with quality of work life.  Of concern is the rating by only 62% of respondents (n=208) that they were either satisfied or extremely satisfied with their quality of work life.  A total of 20% (n=65) were solidly dissatisfied.  Even though there are a myriad of factors which impact quality of work life, it is likely that institutional investment in faculty development activities related to pedagogy is one of the most cost efficient and effective mechanisms for improving quality of work life for faculty while simultaneously improving student performance and retention.  Indeed, perceptions by faculty that college and university administration value quality teaching may have a significant impact on the importance of teaching quality and satisfaction of teaching ability to faculty, as well as to the quality of work life for faculty.  Results of this study indicated that the importance of teaching quality to administration was significantly associated with the importance of respondents' teaching quality (rs = .231, p<.001), satisfaction with respondents' teaching ability (rs = .173, p = .001), and satisfaction with respondents' quality of work life (rs = .275, p<.001).   These probability levels are below the alpha of .003, which was the alpha used for analyses in this study based on the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests.

 In comparing mean scores of respondents who indicated their institution had a Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institute and those who stated their institution did not, some interesting patterns begin to develop which suggest the value of having such an Academy/Center/Institute.  Respondents from institutions which had such an Academy/Center/Institute rated five variables conspicuously higher in importance and satisfaction than respondents from campuses without any such entity.

 Table 1 displays the results from Mann-Whitney U analyses for the importance and satisfaction variables between institutions with and without Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institutes.  The mean score for importance of teaching quality to the administration was rated .17 higher for those with such an entity on campus than for those without such an entity on campus.  However, this difference was not significant (Z = -.908, p = .364).  The mean score for the perceived impact of teaching quality on class attendance was .25 higher for those with such an entity on campus than for those without such an entity.  Though this was not a significant difference (Z = -2.38, p = .017), it did approach significance using the alpha cutoff of .003. Satisfaction mean scores for both quantity and quality of faculty development activities were both .25 higher for respondents from campuses with such an entity than for those from campuses without such an entity.  As with previous analyses, these differences were not statistically significant (Z = -1.70, p =.090; Z = -2.117, p = .034, respectively); however, they both approached significance.  Finally and quite importantly, the satisfaction mean score for quality of work life for faculty from campuses with such an entity was .15 higher than for faculty at institutions without such an Academy/Center/Institute. Again, this difference was not significant (Z = -.954, p = .340).  (Charts depicting these mean score ratings and a copy of the survey can be found in the appendices of this report).
 
 

Table 1

Mann-Whitney U Analyses for Importance and Satisfaction Variables between Institutions With and Without Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institutes

____________________________________________________________________________________

Variable    Faculty Institute  Mean Rank* Z p**
    (N = Yes 133; No 201)
____________________________________________________________________________________
How important:
  is teaching quality to you? Yes   164.08  -.774 .439
 No   169.76

  do you feel teaching quality Yes   172.84  -.908 .364
  is to the administration?  No   163.97

  do you feel teaching quality Yes   171.11  -.633 .527
  is to the majority of your  No   165.11
  colleagues?

How important is impact of
teaching quality on the following:
  student class attendance  Yes   181.48             -2.382 .017
    No   158.25

  student attrition   Yes   169.51  -.330 .742
    No   166.17

  student performance  Yes   167.92  -.072 .943
    No   167.22

  faculty morale   Yes   168.24  -.121 .904
    No   167.01

  faculty turnover   Yes   170.11  -.420 .674
    No   165.77

  public perception of your  Yes   161.76  -.955 .339
  institution   No   171.30
 
  growth in numbers of majors Yes   168.22  -.117 .907
    No   167.02

How satisfied are you with:
  quantity of faculty  Yes   178.01             -1.696 .090
  development activities  No   160.55

  quality of faculty  Yes   180.64            -2.117 .034
  development activities  No   158.80

  quality of your teaching ability Yes   160.24            -1.346 .178
    No   172.30

  quality of your worklife  Yes   173.30  -.954 .340
    No   163.66
______________________________________________________________________________________
*Higher ranks = higher importance/satisfaction scores
**Alpha level cutoff = .003 using Bonferroni correction for multiple tests

There were five open-ended questions on the survey designed to elicit more in depth responses from the participants. The qualitative questions were designed to gain knowledge from the respondents in the following three domains: the reasons faculty believed development activities were sufficient or insufficient, what their ideas were about how faculty development could be improved, and any comments they wished to make.

Participants who were dissatisfied with the quantity or quality of faculty development activity were asked to state the institutional reasons behind their perceptions. Of the 334 participants, 121, or 36 percent of the sample, responded to this item. Forty-nine individuals (40% of those responding to this item) believed that a lack of institutional support was an important contributor to their dissatisfaction. This lack of support, including financial backing as well as less tangible factors, was cited as a reason for low quality/quantity. There were a wide variety of other responses as well, including lack of time, limited offerings, dogmatic adherence to a particular pedagogy, faculty do not buy into it, not frequent enough, and little continuity.
The next question was the mirror of the first. It asked participants to write about the factors that most contribute to their satisfaction with the quality of faculty development activities. Of the 334 respondents, 132 or 40 percent of the sample responded to this item. Thirty individuals (23% of those answering the question) believed the most important contributor to perceived quality was having relevant and interesting topics presented. Having the support of the institution was deemed important by 22 participants; 14 cited supportive colleagues; 12 shared that they thought that a University-wide Center for Teaching Excellence contributed most to their satisfaction, while nine believed that it was the dedication of monetary resources that was most important.

The response to the previous question suggests that the topics chosen for faculty development are significant components of successful programs. The next qualitative question asked participants to list faculty skills they felt needed to be addressed by development activities.  This question generated the most information (251 of 334 or 75% of respondents) of the open-ended questions. Several themes emerged from the analysis of these data. The largest area of interest (n=102) was in learning about new teaching technologies; of this group the largest subgroup (n=32)wanted help infusing/using computers and technology to enhance their teaching. The next area of expressed need involved working with students; specifically, 25 expressed the need for addressing issues of communication, 21 wanted more information on learning differences, and 13 wanted a faculty development forum to address issues of difficult or unprepared students. Finally, 34 participants offered issues of assessment and setting up effective learning environments as worthy and needed endeavors of faculty development programs regarding pedagogy.
Faculty have several preferences regarding what they perceive to be effective learning environments for their pedagogical development. Of the 209 responses to this issue, the most common preference (n=95) was to offer regular workshops. Eighteen respondents believed that discussion groups, conversations, sharing, and roundtables were ideal structures. Mentoring was favored by 16 individuals, while a formal faculty development program or Center was endorsed by 17 people. A few individuals favored a discipline-specific approach to meeting development needs while others specifically eschewed that approach in favor of cross-disciplinary forums. A couple of individuals suggested yearly meetings sufficed; others thought newsletters and off campus activities were ideal.

Finally, respondents were asked to provide "other" comments regarding faculty development activities related to pedagogy. Thirty-one percent of participants (n=105) responded to this open-ended inquiry. Responses were quite varied with no clear pattern emerging. Some of the responses were: college students need people who can teach, commitment cannot be taught, do not waste time on tenured faculty, even simple advice does wonders, faculty should be given formal training, gifted teachers should be emulated, it is important not to become complacent, more funds are needed, needs more than lip service, needs to be pro active, pedagogy is not addressed in graduate education, teaching colleges should expect excellent teachers, we are already over-committed as it is, and we need an overview of the latest findings.

Discussion

College faculty are a unique lot. By and large they have terminal degrees and are renowned experts in their fields. Most are professionally self-directed and have managed their own learning for many years.  The overall low response rate to this survey suggests that many, if not most, college faculty may not perceive themselves as needing development regarding pedagogy. One cannot draw conclusions from non-respondents; however, it is possible that the large cohort of non-responders contain many faculty not inclined to view pedagogy as a salient topic.

From the findings however, several implications emerge which support and extend the work of Blackburn et al. (1991) and Ferren and Mussell (1987). For example, two crucial groups of individuals on campus who need to work collaboratively in order to promote best practices for quality teaching are faculty recognized by their colleagues as highly skilled pedagogically, and the administration. The mentoring role of highly skilled faculty should be developed in order to promote a spirit of collegiality regarding continuous improvement of teaching quality.  It is important to note that the respondent profile suggests a lack of participation in this study by the most senior of faculty by age. Qualified senior faculty should be recruited into leadership positions to promote this type of faculty development. Administration needs to clearly articulate an academic mission that emphasizes teaching quality.  This must be supported with resources that are dedicated to faculty development activities related to pedagogy and that reward faculty for teaching excellence.

Faculty perceive faculty development as an institutional responsibility, which includes sufficient funding. Having tenure standards for quality teaching is one thing; providing for ongoing support of this important objective seems to be another. It is clear from the findings that financial support, while necessary for successful programs, is not sufficient. Institutional support must include the solid perception among faculty that the administration is supportive in a variety of other ways too. These other supports include valuing teaching excellence within personnel evaluations, outstanding teaching awards, merit raises, bonuses, increased faculty development funds, and having an institutional philosophy in support of the development of teaching excellence.

Another implication from this study is that if faculty development activities are to be successful, there must be both actual and perceived ownership by the faculty. Nowhere is this more important than in the decisions about what topics to cover and what supports to provide. An emerging trend from this study suggests that faculty perceive themselves in need of continuing education regarding effective teaching methods for engaging students. Nowhere is this more evident than in the perceived need for integrating computer, Web, and other technology into their teaching.

Moreover, these data suggest that college professors are more likely to perceive faculty development positively if there is a program of regular workshops in place that have been designed with their input. Some faculty suggested that discipline-specific workshops were most needed, while others suggested just the opposite. Programs of faculty development should meet cross-disciplinary pedagogic needs as well as those that are specific to disciplines. Finally, these data suggest that colleagues learning from colleagues is a model that many faculty believe has the most promise.

 More research needs to be conducted to gain student perceptions of the impact of teaching quality on selected variables including class attendance, performance, selection of a major, retention, etc.  A cost efficient and effective mechanism for such research may be the use of student focus groups and analysis of student exit interview databases.

 Finally, the trends observed in this study imply that the existence of a Faculty Teaching Academy/Center/Institute does have a positive impact on satisfaction ratings regarding faculty development activities related to pedagogy and on faculty overall quality of work life ratings.  Given this fact, it appears to be a worthwhile goal for faculty and administration to work towards development of sufficient resources in order to establish or expand such an entity on campus.  There is, of course, a wide range of models for how to establish such a center.  Campus size and mission are factors that affect such development.  Initial development stages can simply involve designation of existing staff to survey faculty about needs and establish seminars to share information among current faculty.  Advanced stages can involve the use of release time, grant funding and collaborative ventures with other campuses to establish an ongoing mechanism for faculty development activities related to pedagogy.  With the current capacities of many campuses for distance learning and satellite videoconferences, perhaps the NHCUC can play an instrumental role in the state to coordinate and maximize the use of existing resources regarding faculty development related to pedagogy.
 
References

Aleamoni, L.M. (1997). Issues in linking instructional-improvement research to faculty development in higher education. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education  11, 31-37.
Anderson, S. (1988). Teaching excellence in the liberal arts. Little Rock, AK: Arkansas University.
Armour, R.A. (1995). Using campus culture to foster improved teaching. In Seldin, P.(Ed.). Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Blackburn, R.T., Lawrence, J.H., Bieber, J.P., and Trautvetter, I. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus on teaching. Research in Education, 32(4), 363-381.
Cross, P.K. (1987). The need for classroom research. In Kurfiss, J. (Ed.) To improve the Academy: Resources for students, faculty, and institutional development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.
  Davis, J.R. (1993). Better teaching, more learning. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Ferren, A. & Mussell, K (1987). Strengthening faculty development programs through evaluation. In Kurfiss, J. (Ed.) To improve the Academy: Resources for students, faculty, and institutional development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums.
Gitken, N.D., & Sorcenelli, M.D. (1995). Academic leaders and faculty developers: Creating an institutional culture that values teaching. In Seldin, P. (Ed). Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Graf, D.L., Albright, M.J., & Wheeler, D.W. (1992). Faculty developments’ role in improving undergraduate education. New directions for teaching and learning, No 51, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Green, J., Millard, S., Sine, P., & Vry, J.(1995). Realizing the potential of information resources: Information, technology, and services--Proceedings of the 1995 CAUSE Annual Conference.
Menges, R. (1991). The real world of teaching improvement: A faculty perspective.  New directions for teaching and learning. No. 48, 21-37. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Norusis, M. J.  (1993).  SPSS for windows.  Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
Olsen, D., & Simmons, A.B. (1994). Faculty perceptions of undergraduate teaching. In Wadsworth, E.C. (Ed.). To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development. Stillwater, OK: New Forum Press.
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  Pastore, J.M. (1995). Creating a culture of commitment as a foundation for teaching effectiveness. In Seldin, P (Ed.). Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
  Paulson, M.B. , & Feldman, K.A. (1995).Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenges of institutional improvement. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
Seldin, P. (Ed.) (1995). Improving college teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker.
Shea, M.A., & Knoedler, A.S. (1994). Becoming a teacher: From pedagogy to practice. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 5(2), 135-151.
 Watson, G., & Grossman, L.H. (1994). Pursuing a comprehensive faculty development program: Making fragmentation work. Journal of Counseling and Development, May/June 1994, Vol.72. 465-473.