A COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY

DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR

NURSING EDUCATION
MICHELE DRUMMOND-YOUNG, BSCN, MHSC (HCP),⁎ BARBARA BROWN, BSCN, MSCN,⁎
CHARLOTTE NOESGAARD, BN, MSCN,⁎ OLA LUNYK-CHILD, BSCN, MSCN,⁎
NANCY MATTHEW MAICH, RN, MSC (T),† CARRIE MINES, RN, MSC (T),† AND
JEANETTE LINTON, RN, MSCN‡

Professional nursing education has undergone profound legislative changes requiring a university
baccalaureate in nursing as entry to practice as a registered nurse (RN) in Ontario, Canada.
Subsequent partnerships between colleges and universities were mandated by the ministry of
post secondary education in order to maximize existing resources, such as faculty, and capitalize
on the strenghts of both sectors. Faculty, in partnered collaborative undergraduate nursing
programs, are challenged by the ever-evolving transition in conceptualization, development, and
delivery of nursing education; consequently, the design, dissemination, and evaluation of effective
faculty development programs is of paramount importance (Steinert, 2000). This paper focuses
on the creation of the Comprehensive Faculty Development Model implemented by a
collaborative BScN program partnership in south-western Ontario. It describes the model's
contextual underpinnings, illustrates the component parts, explains their relationship, and
provides an in-depth discussion of foundational concepts. The model was developed under the
auspices of a collaborative faculty development committee with representation from all
partners. Summaries of four research studies designed and implemented by members of the
partnership provide a useful assessment of how faculty members experienced the inaugural
BScN program; however, more study is needed in order to understand what approaches to
faculty development are most effective and sustainable. (Index words: Faculty development;
Faculty development model; Learning communities; Collaborative partnerships) J Prof Nurs
26:152–161, 2010. Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

F ACULTY DEVELOPMENT IS experiencing an

important revival throughout the education con-
tinuum (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Bredeson, 2002; Farmer,
2004; Van Note Chism, Douglas, Lees, & Evenbeck,
2002). This is based on educational reform as traditional
paradigms are being replaced by emerging active,
⁎Assistant Professor, School of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada.
†Professor, BScN Program, School of Health Sciences, Health Sciences
Programs, Mohawk-McMaster Institute for Applied Health Sciences,
Mohawk College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
‡Professor, School of Health & Life Sciences and Community Services,
Conestoga College, Doon Campus, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.
Address correspondence to Dr. Drummond-Young: Assistant Professor,
School of Nursing, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada HSC-2J19. E-mail: drummond@mcmaster.ca
8755-7223/09/$ - see front matter
student-centered, transformative approaches to learning
that recognize the need to keep astride of exponential
increases in knowledge generation (Bredeson, 2002; Van
Note Chism et al., 2002). Emerging educational
paradigms are focusing on fostering attitudes and
competencies that support lifelong learning and a
further reconceptualization of educational change. The
emphasis has shifted to the micro level where the
enactment of dispositions and metacognitive techniques
affects how the curriculum is experienced (Farmer,
2004; Matthew-Maich et al., 2007; Shulman, 2004; Van
Note Chism et al., 2002).
The importance of teaching is apparent in undergraduate
and professional education. Boyer's (1990) Scholarship
Reconsidered reinterprets the core compartmentalized
functions of teaching, research, and service to a more
integrated, comprehensive construct of scholarship,

152 Journal of Professional Nursing, Vol 26, No. 3 (May–June), 2010: pp 152–161
doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2009.04.004 Crown Copyright © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
recognizing that “knowledge is acquired through research,
through practice and through teaching” (p. 24). To have
faculty enact scholarship as Boyer (1990) described it, there
must be a comprehensive network of supports available to
them throughout their career paths. Faculty development
is becoming an expectation for professional growth.
Farmer (2004) and Brew and Boud (1996) added that
there is a movement to make “training in teaching
compulsory for university academics” (p. 21). Conse-
quently, comprehensive and flexible frameworks are
needed that take into account the full range of academic
mandates, encompassing both personal and individual
components and engaging a community of teachers who
are seeking student success and professional development
in a particular context (Bredeson, 2002).
Broadly speaking, faculty development encompasses “a
range of activities used by institutions to renew and assist
faculty in their roles as well as facilitating the entry of new
recruits to an organization” (Wilkerson & Irby, 1998,
p. 388). The significance and value of faculty develop-
ment are further described as a scholarly activity critical
for promoting educational leadership, innovation, excel-
lence, and the key to academic vitality (Steinert, 2000;
Wilkerson & Irby, 1998). Faculty, in partnered colla-
borative undergraduate nursing programs, are challenged
by the ever-evolving transition in conceptualization,
development, and delivery of nursing education; conse-
quently, the design, dissemination, and evaluation of
effective faculty development programs are of paramount
importance (Steinert, 2000).
At the postsecondary end of the continuum, profes-
sional nursing education has undergone profound
legislated changes, with the baccalaureate as entry to
practice as a registered nurse in Canada. Concurrently,
community colleges and universities have formed colla-
borative partnerships to capitalize on the strengths of
their entry-level nursing resources to meet the educa-
tional requirements of the new credential. The creation of
collaborative baccalaureate nursing programs has pre-
sented a naturally occurring opportunity, motivating
faculty to engage in change within a context of
substantial educational and curricular reform.
The collaborative partnership in this article is com-
posed of one university and two colleges. The bacca-
laureate nursing program is based on a fully integrated
4-year bachelor of science in nursing (BScN) curriculum.
The philosophical foundation originates from the uni-
versity's approach to BScN education that fosters lifelong
and adult learning principles through student-centered,
problem-based learning (PBL) in small groups. The
success of the BScN program was ensured by three key
assumptions: (a) Faculty must be involved with curri-
cular design and implementation; (b) faculty must be
provided with the opportunity to enhance requisite
knowledge, dispositions, and skills, including PBL; and
(c) financial support for faculty development was secured
for a 3-year period.
This article focuses on the creation of the comprehen-
sive faculty development model implemented by a
153
collaborative BScN program partnership in southwestern
Ontario, Canada. It describes the model's contextual
underpinnings, illustrates the component parts, explains
their relationship, and provides an in-depth discussion of
foundational concepts. The model was developed under
the auspices of a collaborative faculty development
committee, with representation from all partners.
Fundamental Tenets
Faculty development has historically functioned from
understanding teaching as an isolated activity involving a
skill or craft (D'Eon, Overgaard, & Rutledge Harding,
2000; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998). A new paradigm
reconceptualizes teaching as scholarship (Boyer, 1990),
requiring a disposition of openness and inquiry along
with engagement in interactive, lifelong learning within a
supportive collaborative culture (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999; Shulman, 2004).
Teaching as Social Practice
D'Eon et al. (2000) further drew compelling parallels
between the essential features of teaching and social
practice. Thus, faculty development for teaching
enhancement needs to be founded on the understanding
of teaching as a social practice, that is, “teaching [as]
purposive, rational, moral, communal, and [as] identified
by its activities” (D'Eon et al., 2000, p. 160). The
communal feature of scholarship focuses on the sig-
nificance of prevailing social norms and how they play a
major role in shaping practice (D'Eon et al., 2000;
Trowler & Knight, 1999). If scholarship is to be
understood as social practice, then faculty development
programs need to provide opportunities for groups of
faculty to discuss their practice. This enables faculty to
influence aspects of their practice and social norms, to
collectively discover and recreate implicit norms that
provide standards of practice, and to construct an open,
tolerant, receptive, supportive culture where divergent
perspectives are respected and/or openly challenged
(Bredeson, 2002; D'Eon et al., 2000; Ramsden, 1998).
Once norms are explicit, they can be explained,
justified, and/or changed. Through this process, faculty
developers foster the type of environment that will
promote a collective deep-thinking dialogue about
curriculum and outcome goals and encourage faculty
to explore how they teach and what they teach. To
provide continuity in the program, faculty need to have
a strong, collective understanding of the sequencing of
curriculum and the philosophical underpinnings of
professional nursing practice and the what, how, and
why of essential content.
Faculty development initiatives need to include
opportunities for educators to address and reshape
these powerful norms to facilitate a successful transfor-
mation to a new educational paradigm at both individual
and communal levels. Using social practice as a construct
for faculty development fosters a collective disposition for
collaborative initiatives and community building. This
promotes a trusting, hardier system that is able to cope
154
with dynamics of educational change (D'Eon et al., 2000;
Shulman, 2004).
Faculty Learning Communities
Learning communities are intentionally cultivated,
supportive environments based on a social constructivist
model of learning. This model suggests that cooperative
learning through dialogue with others promotes learner
fluency in the language and concepts of community to
which participants aspire to be a member (Carroll, 1993;
Quin, Johson, & Johnson, 1995). Cox (2001) stated that
faculty learning communities are most effective for
achieving faculty learning and development. Teaching in
Boyer's (1990) educational paradigm requires an evol-
ving process of challenging old assumptions about
teaching, learning, and the role of the teacher (Nayer,
1995). This is most effectively achieved by formalizing a
number of sustainable venues that systematically
address the needs of participants and are perceived as
being useful. Learning communities built on established,
shared learning goals strengthen communication and
increase interest in teaching and learning. This founda-
tion nourishes the scholarship of teaching, fosters civic
responsibility, changes faculty, and, in time, changes
institutional culture as well as fosters a multifaceted
flexible approach to faculty development (Angelo, 2001;
Cox, 2001).
Fostering a common culture is a long-term process
that requires a mutual appreciation of membership
agency and active participation by all members of the
collaborative BScN program to discover and contribute
to its creation. This is cultivated through respect for the
experience and perspective of each member and an
attitude of open-mindedness; tolerance; a willingness to
reciprocate, to give, and to receive support; and an
overall appreciation of the collective learning curve as
all faculty perceived themselves as learners (Angelo,
2001; Bredeson, 2002; Farmer, 2004).
Community of practice models aim to deepen
knowledge and expertise through fostering ongoing
Figure 1. Comprehensive faculty development model for
nursing education.
DRUMMOND-YOUNG ET AL
interaction. This type of model promotes transformative
change by supporting experimentation, inquiry, and
open reflection in a collegial fashion (Angelo, 2001;
Cox, 2001; D'Eon et al., 2000; Van Note Chism et al.,
2002). It exists in an intellectual climate and encom-
passes research as well as stepping back and looking for
connections, building bridges between theory and
practice, and communicating knowledge effectively to
students (Boyer, 1990). Consequently, the offerings of
faculty developers are becoming more in harmony with
the learner-centered education being promoted for
students (Van Note Chism et al., 2002).
Synthesizing the Comprehensive Faculty
Development Model
The model evolved from the faculty's underlying
philosophical beliefs, values, and experiences with
planning and implementing the collaborative BScN
program. The initial framework, the rationale, and
sources for conceptual underpinnings were developed
through engagement in reflective dialogue to articulate
a framework of anticipated future directions, to
develop planned activities, and to enable faculty to
adapt and function effectively in the ever-changing
educational environment.
Thinking was also informed by the current profes-
sional health sciences faculty development literature.
Although unable to find a single model in the published
literature that reflected, in total, our ideas and experience,
a number of frameworks were synthesized to articulate
how we engaged in social practice and evolved our
learning community. Therefore, we were able to clarify
underlying attitudes and key concepts. Transitional
activities inherent in our experience were identified, as
well as the impact of culture and climate on the
professional development process. These began to
crystallize an understanding of dimensions and relation-
ships within the evolving model. The description of the
model begins with an overview of how each of the
component parts relates to each other and the whole. The
model is intended to portray an evolving relationship in a
multidimensional, dynamic state with flexible, seamless
boundaries (Figure 1).
1. The circumference of the diagram depicts
dispositional characteristics and outcomes.
The capacity for scholarship is identified as
educational vitality. This is the core of the model
and reciprocates with all component parts.
Educational vitality promotes a synergistic social
context fostering lifelong, independent, and
communal learning through a stimulating and
supportive climate (Matthew-Maich et al.,
2007). Teaching, wisdom, and excellence all
presuppose an open disposition, called discov-
ery, to enable learning informed by theory,
research, experience, and critical reflection.
2. The four inner circles characterize Irby's
components of comprehensive faculty develop-
COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
ment (Irby, 1996; Steinert, 2000; Wilkerson &
Irby, 1998). Each circle represents categories of
planned activities, both formal and informal,
intended to support and enhance the growth of
faculty members throughout their careers.
3. The single middle circle is composed of learner-
centered, transitional activities that promote
faculty vitality and excellence (Mott, 1994).
These activities are congruent with the student-
centered, small-group, metacognitive approach
of this BScN curriculum. They enable the
participants to employ learning techniques
and attitudes they are required to foster in their
students while reconceptualizing their roles as
educators. This process enacts the philosophical
underpinnings of the program, resulting in a
lived synthesis of theory into practice, a process
which transformed the understanding of teach-
ing and learning for participating faculty
(Matthew-Maich et al., 2007).
Outcome and Dispositional
Characteristics
Teaching, excellence, and wisdom are considered to be
outcomes of the model, whereas discovery and educa-
tional vitality are dispositional characteristics of faculty
and the climate, respectively.
1. Teaching is an essential faculty activity in
undergraduate nursing education and was the
focus of our collaborative faculty development
initiative. Quality of teaching is of paramount
importance to all stakeholders in the preparation
of professional nurses. Teaching is characterized
by evolving competencies. On an individual
level, it is complex and intellectually demanding
and requires content knowledge and technical
competency (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Cox, 2001; D'Eon et al., 2000; Trowler & Knight,
1999). As social practice, it requires an open and
evolving attitude related to purpose, rationale,
and moral underpinnings and activities (D'Eon
et al., 2000; Shulman, 2004; Steinert, 2000; Van
Note Chism et al., 2002).
2. Discovery is a disposition that develops in a
trusting, reciprocal culture where open, res-
pectful, constructive, collaborative dialogue is
promoted. It encompasses collective values,
commitments, and professional ethics that
influence behaviors related to students, teach-
ing–learning, and colleagues (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999; D'Eon et al., 2000; Shulman, 2004).
3. Excellence evolves with learning from the
practice of teaching. The excellent educator
engages in intentional teaching, enables the
learner to create relationships around concepts
to be learned, anticipates the unexpected,
manages complexity, and makes judgments in
the face of uncertainty based on principles and
155
strategies generated through research, experi-
ence, and reflection (Boyer, 1990; Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Shulman, 2004). The
complex participant structures in student-cen-
tered, small-group PBL challenges the tutor to
be constantly assessing, anticipating, and re-
sponding to group dynamics and individual
student participation. Consequently, excellence
often seems elusive to the novice PBL tutor.
4. Wisdom is defined as an emergent characteristic
of experienced professors with the capacity to
make scholarship comprehensible (Shulman,
2004). It evolves from reflection on practice
leading to self-awareness and metacognitive
awareness and is further demonstrated by an
ability to integrate theory and practice as it
relates to the complexity of educational con-
texts. Competencies in discovery, dissemina-
tion, interpretation, and transformation of
knowledge develop as faculty members assume
leadership roles as mentors, researchers, and
scholars, engaging in opportunities to enhance,
make explicit, and articulate the tacit knowl-
edge embedded in experience (Boyer, 1990;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Shulman, 2004).
5. Educational vitality is the essence of the model,
located at the core or center. It engenders
dynamic and evolving capacity for meaningful
teaching and learning, emerging from collec-
tive beliefs, values, and norms. It is the spirit of
an open culture of reciprocity, trust, and
lifelong learning and catalyzes the disposition
and process of discovery and outcomes of
educational excellence and wisdom (Irby, 1996;
Shulman, 2004; Steinert, 2000; Wilkerson &
Irby, 1998).
Components of a Comprehensive Faculty
Development Model
Faculty development programs must address several
levels of faculty involvement to engage the professoriate
as they evolve along their career paths. A comprehensive
faculty development program includes the following four
components: (a) instructional development—offering
teaching improvement opportunities, (b) professional
development—promoting scholarship and academic
success, (c) leadership development—fostering skills
for curricular planning and change, and (d) organiza-
tional development—enabling faculty to engage in
activities that influence policies and procedures (Irby,
1996; Steinert, 2000; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998). The
various components of a comprehensive faculty develop-
ment program are discussed separately; however, the
resources may be utilized by faculty as needed. In the
spirit of learner-centered learning, each professor focuses
on his or her individual learning goals, may pursue them
through formal or informal channels, and is assisted to
identify and progress along chosen career paths.
156
Instructional development has been the major focus of
our formal faculty development activities. In developing
the pedagogical knowledge, skills, and beliefs necessary
to successfully teach in PBL, Irby (1996) proposed a
series of steps through which faculty must progress.
These include (a) challenging assumptions and develo-
ping understanding of PBL, (b) experiencing and valuing
the tutorial process, (c) acquiring general tutor skills, (d)
developing content-specific tutor knowledge and skills,
(e) acquiring advanced knowledge and skills, (f) deve-
loping leadership and scholarship skills, and (g) creating
organizational vitality. This progression needs to be
followed when planning effective faculty development
programs. To date, the first four steps have been
emphasized within the context of collaborative faculty
development endeavors.
The collaborative faculty development program was
designed in keeping with conceptual models and guided
by a needs assessment. Initially, the greatest needs were
for skills development in the role of the PBL educator and
understanding of curricular sequencing. These goals were
met through planned activities and discourse which
occurred as faculty became acquainted with each other,
the program, and the context in which they dialogued.
The activities were developed to engage participants'
creative and reflective capacities in ways that strengthen
their practice (Bredeson, 2002). This also included an
extensive mentorship program that was established,
providing less experienced faculty the opportunity to
cotutor (teach) with more experienced PBL faculty for an
academic term.
The collaborative faculty were also invited to the regular
university faculty development offerings of Brown Bag
Lunches and other workshops. As well, both college sites
held weekly meetings for ongoing faculty development,
support, sharing, and planning. Becoming a PBL tutor
involves a process of building on prior learning. Faculty
members progressed from understanding and valuing the
rationale for PBL to acquiring general and specific tutor
knowledge and skills to developing advanced PBL
competencies and, eventually, leadership and scholarship,
all of which contribute to organizational vitality (Irby,
1996; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998). Through formal and
informal discourse, faculty learned about the craft of
being a PBL tutor, the “tricks of the trade,” and were en-
couraged to dialogue about explicit and implicit norms.
Professional development enables a faculty new to a
program, school, or faculty to integrate into the academy
and navigate his or her way to becoming a successful
member (Irby, 1996). As well as engaging in a new
educational paradigm, the college faculty needed to
understand the professional requirements of being part
of a baccalaureate nursing program. The accrediting
body, the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing,
developed expectations for collaborative baccalaureate
nursing programs and the professoriate. The most recent
college charter, 2003, has an expanded mandate to make
provisions for supporting faculty in doing applied
research. Consequently, the university provided its
DRUMMOND-YOUNG ET AL
college partners with access to a number of resources
for professional development. First, a standing research
initiative, the nurse education research unit, created to
build education research capacity within the university
school of nursing by providing a venue for research
interest groups and for mentoring junior researchers,
became available to all collaborative faculty. Second,
ongoing workshops to develop research competencies
and writing for publication were conducted. Workshops
and ongoing support were also offered by the university
for developing curriculum vitae and teaching portfolios.
Leadership development is multileveled and in a
changing educational paradigm addresses both the
immediate and long-term needs and evolving roles of
the professoriate. This component focuses on developing
skills for curricular planning and change. Sustainability
and ongoing adaptation of educational programs hinge on
the development of effective leaders. Expertise is required
in curriculum planning, development of colleagues as
effective teachers, promotion of vision and change, and
fostering of scholarly contributions in education,
research, and publication. Leadership development
usually entails long-term, comprehensive programs
(Irby, 1996; Steinert, 2000; Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).
Immediate needs were met by ongoing support of
faculty new to teaching in the program. Faculty attended
weekly meetings with the course planner and the level
consultant from the university. These meetings consisted
of open discussion, troubleshooting, and problem solving
related to the course, assignments, goals, and objectives,
as well as reinforcement of how the course articulates
with the overall curriculum. The latter theme frequently
provided rationale for the former issues. The university
course planners also mentored the college course
planners because all courses, regardless of whether they
were the primary responsibility of the college or
university, have counterpart leaders on all sites. This
process was ongoing, and succession planning for
subsequent incoming course leaders will become the
purview of each site. Through the faculty of health
sciences, the university site also offers a formal advanced
leadership development program that requires a yearlong
commitment involving formal assignments and mentor-
ship with a senior administrator.
Organizational development enables faculty to build
competencies for agency and to feel empowered to excel
in their role as educators. This component of faculty
development can only be effective in an environment that
is open and receptive to inclusive decision making.
Theoretically, this gives the opportunity for faculty to
share responsibility for educational decision making at
the local school level, departmental or faculty level, and at
the institutional level (Irby, 1996; Steinert, 2000; Wilk-
erson & Irby, 1998). Involvement with institutional
culture historically goes to individuals who have a basic
understanding of how the organization functions—
faculty leaders from all collaborative sites are elected or
appointed to standing governance and implementation
committees within the BScN program, the consortium,
COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
and their respective institutions. These positions have the
potential to influence policies and educational culture
(Wilkerson & Irby, 1998). With the trend toward
decentralization and more localized fiscal accountability,
it has become important that faculty understand and
engage in the political dynamics of their institutions.
An ongoing comprehensive approach to faculty devel-
opment will enable the professoriate to develop excellence
in their teaching, shape their careers in a more informed
way, develop strong sustainable programs, and engage in
efforts to influence policies and procedures that affect
educational programs as well as guide faculty norms and
behaviors (Bredeson, 2002; Steinert, 2000; Wilkerson &
Irby, 1998). Such activities are essential to the creation of a
collegial learning community that values agency, innova-
tion, and effective leadership, thus cultivating organiza-
tional vitality and success (Bredeson, 2002; Steinert, 2000;
Wilkerson & Irby, 1998).
Transitional Activities
Mott (1994) described the need for individual and
institutional readiness to engage in effective change
strategies. Her work resonated with us inasmuch as she
identified transitional activities necessary for individual
and institutional transformation as central to adaptation
to educational change. Her model REFRAME is an
acronym with seven phases of professional development:
readiness, exploring, focusing, [reflecting]/relating,
applying, modeling/[mentoring], and evaluating. Our
model reworks those concepts to broaden their scope and
encompass self-selected, formal and informal activities.
Rather than being a linear process, the seven transitional
activities become integrated, a disposition or attitude
adapted by faculty within a supportive learning commu-
nity, where teaching becomes reflective practice and
action research occurs in large- and small-group contexts
(Farmer, 2004; Shulman, 2004). The adapted phases of
the REFRAME model identify useful activities for
progressing through each of the four components of
Irby's (1996) comprehensive faculty development model.
1. Readiness at the macro level resulted from
decades of intensive lobbying for legislation of
baccalaureate as entry to practice as a registered
nurse. This, along with concurrent educational
reform, made PBL a natural fit. Besides, the
external forces, beliefs, and values of the
partnership institutions related to lifelong
learning provided protected time and funding
for the faculty development initiative and a
solid foundation for open, collegial dialogue.
The philosophical underpinnings of the BScN
curriculum enabled a seamless culture of
valuing discovery for both students and faculty.
2. Exploring involves a number of processes:
needs identification, examination of relevance
of stated goals and objectives, engagement in
action research, and reflection on practice. At
the outset, institutional needs and the indivi-
157
dual needs of the professoriate were insepar-
able. The integrated collaborative BScN
program had to provide an equivalent curricu-
lum at all three sites. The culture and context of
each of the collaborative partner sites were
acknowledged. Their strengths and experiences
formed the foundation for their learning and
development. At the micro level, faculty self-
selected to engage in an array of activities
independently, in dyads, or in groups. Action
research and reflection on practice guided the
open dialogue. A combination of feedback,
needs assessments, and evaluations informed
the ongoing faculty development offerings.
3. Focusing enabled both the participants and
faculty developers to clarify their needs and
formulate activities. Many instructional devel-
opment sessions began with a clarification of
what would be most useful to learn regarding a
topic. This discussion was led by a faculty
member with expertise in the content area.
More broadly, this involved ongoing fine-tuning
and reevaluation of key content areas, educa-
tional goals, philosophical perspective, activi-
ties, and strategies. These evolved through
implementation as novice tutors learned from
living the process, becoming more adept with
adult learning principles, and developing a high
degree of self-direction. Learning from the
process is critical to developing insights and
excellence in teaching (Shulman, 2004).
4. Reflecting evolves as both a collective and
individual process. The collective, formal pro-
cess addressed the steps faculty must progress
through to learn the pedagogy and competen-
cies to successfully tutor in PBL (Irby, 1996).
These created the context whereby the faculty
identified their own learning needs and were
encouraged to develop learning plans. Mezirow
(1990) and Cranton (1996) described three
levels of reflection: content reflection, to dis-
cover ones learning needs; process reflection, to
articulate one's own philosophy; and premise
reflection, to express professional transforma-
tion vis-à-vis the departure from traditional
teaching, role relationships, and development
of new competencies. Faculty engaged in an
open, reflective dialogue. They had guided
opportunities to understand their transforma-
tion through large- and small-group sessions
and through action research as participants in
focus groups (Matthew-Maich et al., 2007).
5. Applying was achieved through being responsive
to learning styles, preferences, diverse roles, and
developmental stages of faculty members by
making available a variety of activities and
approaches to learning. Educational opportu-
nities ranged from those offered by the colla-
borative faculty development group, to the
158
collaborative BScN program and the Program for
Faculty Development. Faculty interested in
curriculum development were invited to join
standing committees.
Faculty development activities encompass
both the immediate needs of creating an effective
BScN program at each college site and providing
for the evolving needs of the professoriate.
Ongoing activities have historically existed as
instructional development workshops under the
umbrella of the Faculty of Health Sciences
program for faculty development and within
the university school of nursing under the faculty
development planning committee. The colla-
borative activities were implemented to provide
instructional development workshops and pro-
gram orientation primarily for the faculty from
the college sites. These were the activities that
received collaborative BScN program funding.
Experts, written material, and audiovisual
resources addressed the theoretical foundations
of student-centered PBL. Rubrics for approaches
to group facilitation, evaluation methods, and
the iterative PBL process were provided as
handouts as well as key articles and course
materials which were discussed during orienta-
tion and follow-up meetings. In 2001, faculty
from the university school of nursing published
an evidence-based text discussing their educa-
tional philosophy and approach to PBL, Trans-
forming Nursing Education Through Problem-
based Learning (Rideout, 2001), that takes the
reader from concepts to implementation. This
text has been a useful, comprehensive resource
for incoming faculty.
Many of the seminars and workshops were
videotaped for future use. The level consultants
(for each academic year) were senior university
faculty with curricular expertise. They worked
on-site with college faculty during the initial
implementation as each year of the program was
rolled out. The level consultant attended tutorial
sessions, course meetings, and one-on-one meet-
ings with faculty and course planners. Other
faculty experts became involved with faculty
development sessions as needed.
6. Mentorship. The advantages of mentorship for
postsecondary faculty at all stages of their
careers have been well documented (Luna &
Cullen, 1995; Peterson, 2001). The university
partner had a long history of mentoring junior
faculty. Mentorship underwent a renewal with
the onset of the collaborative BScN program. A
faculty leader was dedicated to both implement-
ing and researching the process. The immediate
purposes of the mentorship program were to
• foster a common culture within the three sites,
• meet learning needs of faculty unfamiliar
with teaching in a PBL curriculum,
DRUMMOND-YOUNG ET AL
• promote understanding of the processes and
strategies used by a tutor in PBL,
• enhance comfort in PBL facilitation by
promoting observation and participation of
inexperienced faculty with experienced PBL
tutors, and
• provide guidance and support during imple-
mentation of the collaborative BScN program.
The long-term goal was to build mentorship
capacity and sustainability at all three sites.
Mentors and mentees self-selected to be involved
in this program. They began the process by
attending a mentorship workshop that addressed
roles and expectations of the relationship. Our
mentors were faculty who feel that they have
benefited from mentorship. The mentor role was
not limited to the most senior faculty and those
in leadership positions. The relationships were
structured to last one semester (12–13 weeks),
but many continued on an informal basis,
meeting less frequently. The structured mentor-
ing relationships consisted of a variety of
membership combinations: one-on-one dyads,
with direct supervision such as cotutoring, and
clusters of three or four mentees, with one
mentor engaging in indirect supervision through
regularly scheduled meetings. Computer-assisted
communication was developed to enhance
access to support our colleagues who were
either less frequently on campus, such as part-
time faculty and our collaborative partners from
the distant site.
7. Evaluation. The era of substantial curricular
reform in undergraduate nursing education has
created an opportune time to design research
and evaluation projects that can inform future
faculty development efforts and contribute to
publishable data (Farmer, 2004). Steinert
(2000) argued the need for more rigorous
faculty development program evaluation, in-
cluding randomized control studies, multiple
assessment methods, and objective outcome
measures. She also encouraged incorporating
program evaluation models, adding qualitative
methodologies to gain insights, including focus
groups, and moving beyond immediate short-
term outcome measures to assessing longer
term change. The limited work published on
faculty development, along with a lack of rigor
in program evaluation and methodology, makes
it difficult to determine the value of such
programs (Bland & Simpson, 1997; Hitchcock
& Mylona, 2000; Irby, 1996; Meurer &
Morzinki, 1977; Reid, Stritter, & Arndt, 1997;
Steinert, 2000). In addition, most faculty
development research has been conducted in
medicine, with little noted in nursing. Bland
and Simpson (1997) stated “future programs
COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
must have more rigorous evaluations and
commitment to publish” (p. 291).
The collaborative faculty development team
built research into the process from the outset.
They were involved in evaluation from grant
application to determination of the methodo-
logical approach, implementation, data gather-
ing, analysis, and write-up. Although this in
itself does not contribute to the body of
knowledge, it does set the foundation for
research in action and an attitude of teaching
and faculty development as scholarship. There
were four initial studies.
Study 1, that of Matthew-Maich et al.
(2007), used a qualitative approach that
captured the experience of novice university
faculty and partnered college professors as
they made the transition form traditional
teachers to PBL tutors. Data were gathered
through focus groups 1 year into the adapta-
tion of PBL. Participants revealed that they felt
supported in the shift from teacher to facil-
itator and in the formation of a common
culture. Faculty from each of the three
partnership sites felt a bond as one learning
community. Essentially, the study participants
“developed a sense of evolving as nurse
educators in PBL through engaging in faculty
development activities” (p. 78). These activ-
ities served as a catalyst in creating a new
common culture, an outcome that is highly
congruent with setting the foundation for a
successful collaborative nursing program.
Study 2 was undertaken 4 years after the
collaborative BScN program implementation in
2000. Q-methodology was used to identify
faculty viewpoints about their collaborative
program experience. This approach enabled
the faculty from all three sites to identify six
salient perspectives, champions of collabora-
tion, proponents of scholarship and clinical
hours, critics of collaboration, defenders of the
university curriculum, acceptors of collabora-
tion, and detractors of partnership (Aktar-
Danesh, Brown, Rideout, Brown, & Gaspar,
2007). These were held among the faculty with
respect to collaboration. Overall collaboration
was seen as a success, and a spirit of coopera-
tion prevailed. However, a number of faculty
concerns surfaced. “These related primarily to
the college faculty's sense of exclusion from
decision-making and not being valued for their
expertise, while [university] faculty concerns
related to maintenance of program standards
and fear that the PBL method for which the
school of nursing is known would be dimin-
ished in some way” (p. 58). University faculty
saw faculty development as coming at a great
cost to their own professional development,
159
and some college faculty saw it as repetitive.
Some university faculty were reluctant to offer
support to their college colleagues in relation to
scholarship. There was a pervading sense that
university faculty had been stretched too far.
Study 3 used a quantitative survey to
evaluate the effectiveness of skills develop-
ment workshops over the inaugural 4 years of
the collaborative BScN curriculum implemen-
tation (Lunyk-Child et al., 2006). The out-
comes of interest were changes in self-
perception related to knowledge and comfort
with facilitating PBL. Faculty were surveyed
preworkshop (Time 1), immediately after
workshop (Time 2), at 1 year (Time 3), and
at the end of the fourth year of the
curriculum implementation (Time 4). Signifi-
cant increases in knowledge and comfort were
noted between Time 1 and Time 2, and Time
1 and Time 4. All three sites reported similar
changes. These findings present initial sup-
port that this faculty development program
based on identified needs, with a formal
approach to lifelong learning providing a
variety of guided learning opportunities, can
enhance and sustain faculty knowledge and
comfort over the first 4 years of implementa-
tion of a PBL nursing curriculum.
The fourth study used a qualitative
approach to explore mentorship as experi-
enced by participants from all three sites who
described the benefits and limitations of the
various relationships (dyads, clusters, and
cotutor). Faculty accepted the opportunity
to be a mentor with more than one mentee,
and mentees valued having peers within a
mentor–mentee cluster (Noesgaard, Ellis,
Brown, Drummond-Young, 2002; Noesgaard
et al., 2003).
Given that the program existed for 12
weeks, groups were able to have multiple and
ongoing discussions using a number of
venues, face-to-face, e-mail, and/or telephone
conversations. Increased understanding of the
challenges and opportunities for student
growth emerged as mentor and mentee
determined topics for discussion or had
open-ended meeting times.
The use of clusters contributes another
dimension to the current state of mentorship
literature. Many other comments from mentees
reflected feeling supported and having a sense of
belonging to the overall collaborative program.
In conclusion, the peer-to-peer mentorship
program has been deemed highly successful
from both the mentee and mentor perspective
when in the context of a formal faculty
development program. Faculty participants
acknowledged that the mentorship program
160
was pivotal of all faculty development activities
(Noesgaard et al., 2002, 2003).
All cited research has either been published
in peer-reviewed journals or presented at
international peer-reviewed conferences.
Clearly, this is just the beginning; long-term
research must be undertaken to determine the
most effective ways of engaging in faculty
development as the needs and nature of the
partnerships, priorities of the college and
university sectors, individual institutions,
and nursing education evolve and the faculty
mix changes. Collective agreements and
faculty incentive systems need to be further
explored because now it seems that, in the
steady-state phase of the collaborative partner-
ships, the work of taking an active part in
maintaining the collaborative program and
actively participating in the learning commu-
nity does not fit well with the current career
merit and promotion system at the university.
Thus, faculty feel burdened and stretched too
far, and college faculty feel that they have
little impact on decision making (Aktar-
Danesh et al., 2007). These findings are
echoed in the 2007 final report compiled by
the College University Consortium Council
on the province-wide comprehensive evalua-
tion of collaborative undergraduate bacca-
laureate nursing programs conducted in
Ontario, Canada (Zorzi, Engman, Barry,
Lauzon, MacCoy, & Yen, 2007).
In addition to research, a collaborative
program evaluation committee was struck to
support and promote undergraduate program
evaluation. This committee consists of a
number of working groups with membership
from all three sites and was funded with a
half-time research assistant. Projects include
appraisal of clinical learning environments,
course evaluations, exit surveys, and employ-
er feedback. Overall, these outcomes serve to
identify future learning needs, to guide
upcoming collaborative faculty development
endeavors, to promote consistency in teach-
ing and learning across the collaborative
partners, to shape transformation to a new
educational paradigm and partnership, to
plan further research and program evaluation,
and, ultimately, to determine the success of
this integrated BScN curriculum.
Conclusion
The process of constructing and articulating this model
has provided a means of clarifying our journey and
establishing frameworks to guide and challenge our future
directions. Conceptualizing the scholarship of teaching as
social practice has created a natural milieu in which our
learning community has flourished. Further implement-
DRUMMOND-YOUNG ET AL
ing the social constructivist model of learning strengthens
the transformation from traditional teaching to self-
directed, student-centered PBL in small groups by
enabling faculty to live the synthesis of theory to practice,
“the underlying enabling context that promotes engage-
ment of faculty in the process” (Matthew-Maich et al.,
2007). This has become the cornerstone of successful
implementation of the BScN program. Incorporating
Boyer's (1990) comprehensive interpretation of teaching
as scholarship has also liberated our thinking to be more
open, creative, and critically reflective of what we do, how
and why we do it, and whether what we achieve is
effective. This perspective honors teaching and keeps the
professoriate vital. When educational transformation is
made explicit, the informed innovation of teaching and
learning becomes the fabric of the culture (Van Note
Chism et al., 2002).
References
Aktar-Danesh, N., Brown, B., Rideout, E., Brown, M. &
Gaspar, L. (2007). Use of Q-methodology to identify nursing
faculty viewpoints of a collaborative BScN program experience.
Nursing Leadership, 20, 44–62.
Angelo, T. A. (2001). Doing faculty development as if
we value learning most: Transformative guidelines from
research to practice. To improve the academy: Resources
for faculty, instructional and organizational development.
(Vol. 19, pp. 97–112). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing
Company, Inc.
Barr, R. B. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a
new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 13–25.
Bland, C. & Simpson, D. (1997). Future faculty development
in family medicine. Family Medicine, 29, 290–293.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the
professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Learning.
Bredeson, P. V. (2002). The architecture of professional
development: Materials, messages and meaning. International
Journal of Educational Research, 37, 661–675.
Brew, A. & Boud, D. (1996). Preparing for new academic
roles: An holistic approach to development. International
Journal of Academic Development, 2, 17–25.
Carroll, R. G. (1993). Implications of adult education
theories for medical school faculty development programmes.
Medical Teacher, 15, 163–170.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of
knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities.
Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
Cox, M. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change
agents for transforming institutions into learning organization.
In D. Lieberman & C. Wehlbury (Eds.), To improve the academy.
Resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational develop-
ment. (pp. 69–93). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Co. Inc.
Cranton, P. (1996). Professional development as transformative
learning: New perspectives for teachers of adults. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
D'Eon, M., Overgaard, V. & Rutledge Harding, S. (2000).
Teaching as a social practice: Implications for faculty develop-
ment. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 5, 151–162.
Farmer, E. A. (2004). Faculty development for problem-
based learning. European Journal of Dental Education, 8,
59–66.
COMPREHENSIVE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
Hitchcock, M. A. & Mylona, Z. H. (2000). Teaching faculty to
conduct problem-based learning. Teaching and Learning in
Medicine, 12, 52–57.
Irby, D. M. (1996). Models of faculty development for
problem-based learning. Advances in Health Sciences Education,
1, 69–81.
Luna, G. & Cullen, D. L. (1995). Empowering the faculty:
Mentoring redirected and renewed (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report No. 3). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education.
Lunyk-Child, O., Brown, B., McKey, C., Matthew-Maich, N.,
Mines, C. & Carpio, B. (2006). Mentorship that promotes
implementation of BScN collaborative nursing program in
Ontario. Presented at 1st Nurse Education International Con-
ference. Vancouver, BC.
Matthew-Maich, N., Mines, C., Brown, B., Lunyk-Child, O.,
Carpio, B., Drummond-Young, M., et al. (2007). Evolving as
nurse educators in problem based learning through a commu-
nity of faculty development. Journal of Professional Nursing, 23,
75–82.
Meurer, L. N. & Morzinki, J. A. (1977). Published
literature on faculty development programs. Family Medicine,
29, 248–250.
Mezirow, J. (1990). How critical reflection triggers transfor-
mative learning. In J. Mezirow (Ed.). Fostering critical reflection
in adulthood. (pp. 1–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mott, M. (1994). Reframe: A model for promoting faculty/
staff vitality and excellence. Journal of Staff, Program, &
Organization Development, 11, 151–160.
Nayer, M. (1995). Faculty development for problem-based
learning programs. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 7,
138–148.
Noesgaard, C., Brown, B., Carpio, B., Guise, M., Legris, J.,
McDonald, J., et al. (2003). Constructing peer to peer
mentorship in a collaborative nursing program. Presented at
Developments in Nurse Education Conference. Manchester,
England.
161
Noesgaard, C., Ellis, P., Brown, B. & Drummond-Young, M.
(2002). A collaborative peer to peer mentor program: A merging of
two cultures. PBL 2002: A Pathway to Better Learning. Baltimore,
MD.
Peterson, C. A. (2001). Nursing shortage: Not a simple
problem—no easy answers. Online Journal of Issues in Nursing
Retrieved Sept. 21, 2007 [On-line].
Quin, Z., Johson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative
versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 129–143.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Learning to lead in higher education. (2nd
ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Reid, A., Stritter, F. & Arndt, J. (1997). Assessment of
faculty development program outcomes. Family Medicine, 29,
242–247.
Rideout, E. (2001). Transforming nursing education through
problem-based learning. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Shulman, L. S. (2004). The wisdom of practice. Essays on
teaching, learning and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Steinert, Y. (2000). Faculty development in the new
millennium: Key challenges and future directions. Medical
Teacher, 22, 44–50.
Trowler, P. R. & Knight, P. (1999). Organizational socializa-
tion and induction in universities: Reconceptualizing theory
and practice. Higher Education, 37, 177–195.
Van Note Chism, N., Douglas, N., Lees, N. D. & Evenbeck, S.
(2002). Faculty development for teaching innovation—greater
expectations. Liberal Education, 88, 34–41.
Wilkerson, E. & Irby, D. M. (1998). Strategies for improving
teaching practices: A comprehensive approach to faculty
development. Academic Medicine, 73, 387–396.
Zorzi, R., Engman, A., Barry, J., Lauzon, C., MacCoy, D. &
Yen, W. (2007). Implementation evaluation of Ontario's collabora-
tive nursing programs: Final report for the Ontario College
University Consortium Council (CUCC) (May 11, 2007). Cathexis
Consulting Inc: Toronto.