Curriculum change. The interviewers discovered that faculty development programs which direct the energies of faculty toward preparation for curriculum changes can be relatively successful-in renewing both what is being taught and who is teaching. Faculty often benefited greatly from programs which encouraged them to revise significantly a current course, prepare to teach entirely new subject matter, or to work with colleagues in "repackaging" a department's curriculum or preparing a new interdisciplinary approach. A focus on curriculum change seemed to be most successful where the goals were clear and the right people had been selected to pursue them.

This approach seemed to lose effectiveness when curriculum itself loomed too large or when it replaced other important considerations for effective teaching and learning. For example, interviewers encountered several faculty who were very excited abut teaching in a new interdisciplinary area where their studies had led them. Yet these same faculty were often prevented from teaching the new subject because their own departments were concerned that they would not be able to cover all of the essential areas of the discipline. In addition, related departments feared their territory was being encroached upon. On the more positive side, the interviewers found departments that rotated courses regularly to ensure that faculty had an opportunity to teach in areas of strong and new interest.

Curriculum change can be an effective means of faculty development, especially when goals are clear, faculty are well prepared for new assignments, and individual desires have a chance for expression.

Organizational change. Readily apparent in the above chart is the small number of institutions who gave any attention to organizational change as a means of encouraging faculty development. Only six of the colleges surveyed had instituted some specific organizational adjustment designed to enhance faculty renewal on campus and most of these adjustments were relatively minor in scope.

Yet in the long run, organizational changes in the reward structure, the committee system, or personnel management could have more impact than any other approach to faculty development. Many faculty we interviewed pointed to the reward structure on their campuses as unclear. To what extent are sincere efforts at improving teaching as well as scholarly publications rewarded-or even noticed? Signs and signals from administrators, department chairpersons and even colleagues are usually taken seriously by faculty, but where these signs and signals are confusing, any positive impact is lost.

Likewise structural changes in the faculty committee system need to be given more attention in relation to faculty development. Having a group of respected faculty overseeing faculty evaluation and development from a promi⚫nent place in the campus governance structure is an important factor in building a positive attitude toward renewal on campus. Also, time for scholarly and teaching activities can be increased by reducing excessive and unnecessary committee involvement and by reorganizing secretarial, library, media and other support systems.

On virtually every campus we heard frequent complaints from faculty concerning the evaluation system. Most faculty understand the importance of, and indeed the necessity of a good system of student and peer evaluation, but most

thought that current evaluation systems were too inflexible and not reflective of their work. To be sure some selfindulgence and defensiveness were present in these faculty viewpoints, but the deeper problem still exists. An evaluation system that is not well-regarded will not be helpful in encouraging development and renewal. Moreover, many campuses did not seem to be examining carefully the relationship between faculty evaluation and faculty development. A good evaluation system which is fair, flexible, and respected can provide very helpful information for both individual and collective faculty development.

Taking a hard look at campus organizational matters, including reward structures, committee alignments, and evaluations systems, ought to be a vital part of any college's attempting to build a supportive climate for continuing faculty development.

FACULTY DEVELOPMENT: PROCESS

In the AAC Project we have looked carefully, not only at the content of faculty development programs, but at process-how were programs designed and implemented. As one administrator remarked, "Innovations are not accepted on their merits." The interviewers discovered quickly that how a college carried out its faculty renewal program was equally as important, perhaps more important, than what it proposed to do. The following issues proved to be especially important in the process of campus faculty development programs.

Clarity of purpose. Interviewers noted that in several instances colleges failed to sort out their needs and purposes. Was there a real need to improve the scholarly climate of the campus or was there a need to look at alternative approaches to instruction, or both? To what extent should faculty development be controlled by curricular considerations? At whom were the various aspects of the program aimed? Failure to make the objectives clear often resulted in lost time and poor placement of resources.

Careful planning. In most cases where planning was brief and involved only a small handful of individuals, the faculty development program suffered. At one of two campuses where the traditon of faculty involvement in decision-making was not strong, it appeared to be acceptable for a few administrators to carry out the planning. But at most colleges, failure to involve a significant number of faculty in the planning process led to problems. Meaningful faculty involvement in planning often creates a feeling of ownership of and long-term commitment to the faculty development program.

On-campus communication. The interviewers found that lack of good communication (quite surprisingly, even on relatively small campuses) had a strong negative impact on a program. In many cases, program availability was clearly communicated, although on one campus a faculty member remarked to an interviewer, "Oh, do we have such a program?" Often, however, there was a real lack of information concerning the continuing involvement of faculty colleagues in the program. Where both opportunities for scholarly and teaching assistance and results of activities were reported frequently, faculty were stimulated more often to consider their own development needs. Where communication was poor this bandwagon effect was lost.

Program and personnel management. Not surprising to interviewers was the observation that the quality of pro

gram and personnel management made an important difference in faculty development. Were leadership responsibilities clear? Were key administrators supportive of the program? Did they assume leadership where necessary, but become less directly involved where it was important for faculty leadership to emerge? Which faculty were given leadership roles? It is obviously crucial that program leaders are those faculty who are generally respected by their colleagues and are thoroughly supportive of the program.

Good personnel management has never been a great strength of the academy. We found many instances where faculty had not been given feedback on their evaluations, where they had been given no personal encouragement for further development, and where their talents had been improperly channeled. Presidents and deans are very important in giving leadership to and support for faculty development, but department and division chairpersons play equally important roles. However, most department heads are simply not trained in or attuned to good personnel practices. Some learn this new role quickly while others serve out their term primarily as general organizers and FTE counters. Fortunately, some campuses are beginning to realize the importance of the department chairperson role and are developing programs to prepare and assist them in personnel matters. Other campuses are taking advantage of regional department chairperson workshops organized by AAC and others.

Faculty knowledge of faculty development. During the campus visits, interviewers became increasingly aware of the lack of knowledge by faculty and some administrators of the various possible approaches to faculty development. This deficiency often means that faculty renewal is defined within a very narrow perspective; it also results in too much unproductive reinventing the wheel, with project leaders failing to learn from the successes and mistakes of others. Thus, for many campuses an important first step in starting or extending a faculty development program is to educate faculty as to the great variety of approaches to assist in their own renewal. This type of educational program may help faculty in both defining their own needs and extending their vision of possible projects and programs.

Program evaluation. "We are thinking of doing some evaluation at the end of the faculty development grant period." This was often the response to interviewers' queries about systematic evaluation of the campus program. Lack of serious evaluation; of the college's faculty development program in certain cases allowed the continuation of unproductive activities. The visit by the outside interviewers and the feedback given to the colleges was, in several instances, the first serious, comprehensive evaluation produced. Yet it was clear that several campuses could have profited from midCourse corrections. Faculty development, precisely because it is a difficult and sensitive area in which to work, deserves periodic evaluation, and colleges that take time for this important matter will profit greatly.

Individual and group activity. In the long run, faculty development is a highly individualized matter, encouraging the intellectual and personal growth of individual faculty members. Thus it is not surprising that the most frequently used approaches to faculty development have been individually oriented: sabbatical leaves, professional travel,

released time, individual small grants. At the same time, it is important to balance these individual approaches with group activity. Too much stress on individual activity tends further to alienate faculty from one another in settings in which departmentalization is already the order of the day. Some colleges have recognized that such corporate development activities as faculty learning and sharing in seminars and workshops, are not only effective and efficient ways of learning, but mechanisms with important side benefits as well. Faculty who had engaged in significant group projects often spoke of ways in which they had learned to know their colleagues better had gained new respect for them, and had come to view themselves as a part of a larger body of faculty-all with important contributions to make to learning and teaching. Moreover, grouporiented programs often reach a larger number of persons with a relatively small investment of funds. Also, sometimes faculty were pulled into group development activities who might have felt reluctant to apply for individual grants. Campuses would do well to examine carefully spending some of their faculty development funds for corporate activities.

Variety and flexibility in faculty development Just like students, faculty members differ in their interests and needs. Yet, this fact is often overlooked in designing programs for faculty renewal. Not all faculty will respond equally well to a single approach to development. Some faculty will respond aggressively to new opportunities for research and study while others will not. Some faculty will never take part in a discussion concerning new approaches to teaching; others will profit greatly from such an exchange. For many faculty, an individual grant is a great stimulus; for others, a group approach to development is more effective. In sum, those campuses that organized a multifaceted, flexible approach seemed to reach more faculty and to do so with more lasting effect.

These conclusions from the AAC Project on Faculty Development will provide no simple magic formulas. Yet, the above issues came sharply to the fore throughout interviews across twenty campuses and should provide useful reference points for those colleges beginning, continuing, or extending the increasingly important task of faculty renewal.

(Portions of this article are adapted from presentations made at two national conferences: the Gordon College Conference on Faculty Growth Contracts, June, 1979, and the Lilly Endowment Faculty Development Conference, June, 1979.)