Evaluation of a Model for Faculty Development: Implications for Educational Policy
Maurice J. Eash, John J. Lane
Abstract
Maurice J. Eash, John J. Lane
Abstract
In a 2-year study, problems were investigated in organizing a program for faculty development among institutions of higher education, business and industry, government, and nonprofit agencies. A sample of faculty members from 3 institutions of higher education and officers from 12 industries and agencies were queried. A model for exchange of personnel was tested in the second year. The study concluded: (a) Institutions of higher education are ill prepared to direct faculty development if they do not have strong program development; (b) exchanges of personnel among institutions of higher education and other agencies require a large number of participating institutions since one-to-one exchanges are not feasible if both institutional and faculty demands are to be met.
OpenAlex reports 6 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In a 2-year study, problems were investigated in organizing a program for faculty development among institutions of higher education, business and industry, government, and nonprofit agencies. A sample of faculty members from 3 institutions of higher education and officers from 12 industries and agencies were queried. A model for exchange of personnel was tested in the second year. The study concluded: (a) Institutions of higher education are ill prepared to direct faculty development if they do not have strong program development; (b) exchanges of personnel among institutions of higher education and other agencies require a large number of participating institutions since one-to-one exchanges are not feasible if both institutional and faculty demands are to be met.
Key concepts: Higher education, Government (linguistics), Sample (material), Faculty development, Business, Public relations, Professional development, Economic growth