Becoming a Teacher:
Conceptualizing and Facilitating New Faculty Development

By Kristin M. Vespia

Abstract

Providing effective mentoring for faculty is complicated by the diverse range of teaching experience found in new faculty and by the lack of systematic training available to prospective mentors (Johnson, 2002). A model of counselor supervision and development, the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998) could be adapted for use in this mentoring process. The IDM provides a way to conceptualize faculty development and then to construct specific and appropriate mentoring interventions.

Keywords: faculty development; mentoring; mentoring programs; new faculty training

New faculty mentoring has received increasing attention recently (e.g., Heppner & Johnston, 1994; Schrodt, Cawyer, & Sanders, 2003). Advocates believe faculty development may improve junior faculty satisfaction and retention (Nathan, 1994) and address criticisms of undergraduate teaching quality (Millis, 1994). Mentoring programs benefit new faculty and may also invigorate their mentors. Thus, rather than describing a new teaching technique, this article will focus on a specific faculty mentoring strategy.

Research on Instructor Development and Mentoring

     Although teaching is a critical task for new academicians, they may not feel adequately prepared for it. Graduate students often work as teaching assistants (TAs) but may not receive significant training in how to teach effectively (Heppner, 1994; Meyers & Prieto, 2000). One study of TAs (n = 78) at a large, Midwestern University found 49% reported no training before their TA experience (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994). A more recent survey targeted TAs (n = 176; 116 departments) and department chairs (n = 181) from psychology doctoral programs (Meyers & Prieto, 2000). The majority (86%) of department chairs indicated their TAs received some formal training, but only 68% of graduate assistants (who may represent different programs) said they received formal training. A sizable minority of the TAs (38%) indicated they assumed full responsibility for course instruction.
     Considerable diversity exists in the teaching preparation of new faculty. Some bring substantial training and experience; others have never designed or implemented their own class. These variations in new professionals' teaching experience mean a "one-size-fits-all" mentoring approach will probably not work. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about what faculty mentorship should entail (Schrodt et al., 2003), and few professionals receive any real training in effective mentoring (Johnson, 2002).

Applying the IDM to New Faculty Development

     New faculty and their mentors could benefit from a model of instructor development and mentorship. Prieto (1995; 2000) has conceptualized TA development using a model of clinical supervision and counselor development, the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), but it could be extended to apply to new faculty mentoring. The IDM posits four qualitatively different levels of therapist development (1-3i) (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Individuals at each stage differ in "autonomy," "motivation," and "self and other awareness" (p. 16). Development occurs in many domains (e.g., assessment, interventions) and may occur unevenly, with a trainee functioning at Level 2 for clinical assessments and struggling at Level 1 for therapeutic interventions.
     Although acknowledging this potential unevenness, IDM advocates believe supervision strategies should match supervisees' developmental needs (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Hierarchical counselor supervision is not equivalent to collegial faculty mentoring, but learning to counsel and learning to teach are both developmental processes that require learning specific interventions/skills, many of which are interpersonal. Furthermore, some scholars have recognized faculty, like supervisees, have different mentorship needs at different career stages (Van Eck Peluchette & Jeanquart, 2000). The IDM may, therefore, be a helpful heuristic for faculty – one that gives them a language for discussing professional development and suggests specific, developmentally appropriate mentoring strategies. What follows is a faculty development version of IDM stages and corresponding mentoring strategies.

Level 1
     According to the IDM, new therapy trainees (Level 1) are highly motivated and anxious (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). They struggle with autonomy and consult their supervisors regularly. They are also so focused on their own performance and evaluation anxiety that they are less able to concentrate on clients. Striking parallels can be drawn to new teachers (Prieto, 1995). Their motivation may also be high, but they may want reassurance from mentors regarding classroom decisions or unfamiliar tasks. They may find themselves focusing so much on presenting new lecture content, using technological aids, and evaluating their classroom performance that they have diminished awareness of students' experiences.
     Appropriate mentoring at this level should come from an accessible faculty mentor who encourages questions. Things experienced teachers take for granted, like requesting textbooks, may be unfamiliar. New faculty may also be reluctant to pose questions due to evaluation anxiety. Because these teachers are focused on classroom content and structure, mentoring interventions might also focus there (e.g., providing sample syllabi or exams). As with entry-level therapists and TAs (Prieto, 1995; Stoltenberg et al., 1998), direct observation could be helpful. These teachers are self-focused and may have difficulty objectively evaluating their performance and recognizing student reactions. Apprehension associated with such observation might be decreased by clearly explaining its goals and first inviting the new teacher to observe colleagues' classes. Finally, mentors and new faculty may benefit from reviewing the IDM. New faculty could engage in self-assessment, and the mentoring pair could explicitly discuss the types of assistance that might be most helpful to the new faculty member.

Level 2
     Applying Stoltenberg et al.'s (1998) ideas, Level 2 instructors would be more autonomous and less self-focused. Some teaching skills would now be automatic, leaving more cognitive energy for awareness of students/student-teacher interactions. Prieto (1995) notes they may develop more empathy for students. As awareness of their students increases, education, like therapy, becomes more complex, and motivation may fluctuate (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Teaching becomes more than providing information; instructors must consider student motivation, classroom dynamics, and balancing conflicting student needs. The intense demands of teaching may feel even more overwhelming when faculty try to attend to research and service, which they thought might take precedence once their teaching was "under control." These instructors may understandably struggle with vacillating levels of autonomy and motivation.
     Because of their more advanced skills, mentoring interventions welcomed by inexperienced educators (e.g., sample syllabi) may be seen as indicating a lack of confidence or as infringing upon academic freedom (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Level 2s are more aware of classroom process issues (e.g., student engagement), so these can become a mentorship focus. According to the IDM, Level 2 therapists may become overwhelmed by enhanced empathy for clients, leading to problems with enmeshment or objectivity. Similarly, educators may become too allied with student perspectives and benefit from the objective eyes of direct observation. The IDM authors also view the fluctuating confidence and motivation common in Level 2 as appropriate mentoring topics. By simply reviewing the model with a mentor, newer faculty might experience these issues as more normative and less distressing. Mentors might also disclose their own frustrations with balancing teaching, research, and service, as junior faculty may be reluctant to broach the topic due to evaluation concerns.

Levels 3 and 3i
     Prieto (1995) refers to Level 3i TAs as representative of "Junior Faculty" functioning (p. 99), but it could be argued, consistent with Stoltenberg et al.'s (1998) ideas, that some faculty (junior and senior) will not reach Level 3 (or 3i – functioning at Level 3 across teaching domains). The IDM authors might describe Level 3 instructors in this way. They are motivated, autonomous professionals who are highly aware of both themselves and their students. They should have diverse pedagogical skills and be able to manage course content and process simultaneously. They should be aware of student responses to material (e.g., engagement, anxiety), and be able to use those responses to further the educational experience. These teachers view education as complex, but they feel they can meet that challenge. They likely possess well-developed educational philosophies.
     Mentoring is still valuable at Level 3, but it should be more reciprocal and target advanced skills (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). These teachers may want to discuss how their own personality influences the classroom learning environment or to develop sophisticated new instructional strategies. Group exchanges of pedagogical ideas could prove invigorating for junior and senior faculty. Mentors of Level 3 educators might also facilitate continued development by encouraging these instructors to design new courses or engage in SoTL activities. They might also advocate for their placement on curriculum review committees or promote attending teaching conferences where they can continue to enhance their skills. 

Further Applications and Evaluation of the IDM in Faculty Development

     The IDM supervision model has a strong research base (see Stoltenberg et al., 1998), but empirical support for use with faculty mentoring is lacking. Research with TAs has shown inexperienced TAs prefer more direct guidance than their more experienced counterparts, as would be predicted by the IDM (Prieto, 2001). Future researchers could construct faculty surveys based on a content analysis of the theory. Surveys could be administered to instructors at different career stages to see if their teaching concerns and mentoring preferences are consistent with the IDM.
     Although the lack of direct empirical support must be acknowledged, the IDM may still provide a helpful framework for talking about and promoting new faculty development. Many campuses already work to facilitate this process by assigning individual mentors or providing workshops on issues like the tenure process (e.g., Instructional Development Council, 2005). These efforts might be enhanced with the IDM. As has been discussed, mentorship dyads could read about the model (for more detailed reviews, see Stoltenberg et al, 1998 or Prieto, 1995) and use it to open discussions about the nature of faculty development and the new faculty member's specific needs, both initially and as they evolve over time. The model might also highlight for both parties that rates of development will vary in different domains. A new faculty member might function at Level 1 when it comes to assessing student learning but work at Level 2 when structuring classroom presentations. This means mentors may have to adjust their intervention strategies within the same meeting, depending on the issue at hand (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). The IDM and other faculty development approaches could also be presented at new faculty workshops to supplement topics like tenure or organizational structure. Both new and more experienced instructors could reflect upon and share their own development process in a group setting. These steps might enhance current practices by: a) encouraging mentorship that accounts for and expects individual differences; b) identifying and normalizing predictable developmental challenges for junior faculty; and c) highlighting both process and outcome (e.g., tenure) as worthy of attention and discussion.
     Applications of the IDM are not limited to new or junior faculty. The IDM authors assert, after all, that development is continuous, and collegial supervision or mentorship can be helpful throughout a career as individuals evolve personally and professionally and face new challenges (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Faculty at all experience levels might benefit from learning about the IDM and using it as a heuristic to talk about past development and future aspirations. Furthermore, as campuses design workshops or conferences for faculty as a whole, they might attempt to provide programs designed to meet the needs of instructors facing a range of developmental issues (e.g., creating a series with both a presentation on "Breathing New Life into Established Classes" and a round-table discussion about "Developing a Teaching Philosophy"). Doing so might increase the relevance of such programs to attendees. The practice also promotes an idea that many who work in faculty development would likely endorse: professional development is a career-long process.

References

Heppner, M. J. (1994). An empirical investigation of a teaching practicum on prospective faculty. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 500-507.

Heppner, P. P., & Johnston, J. A. (1994). New horizons in counseling: Faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 451-453.

Instructional Development Council (2005). New faculty. Retrieved August 9, 2005, from   http://www.uwgb.edu/idc/NewFaculty/newfaculty.htm

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 88-96.

Meyers, S. A., & Prieto, L. R. (2000). Training in the teaching of psychology: What is done and examining the differences. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 258-261.

Millis, B. J. (1994). Faculty development in the 1990s: What it is and why we can't wait. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 454-464.

Nathan, P. E. (1994). Who should do faculty development and what should it be? Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 508-509.

Prieto, L. R. (1995). Supervising graduate teaching assistants: An adaptation of the Integrated Developmental Model. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 2, 93-105.

Prieto, L. R. (2001). The supervision of teaching assistants: Theory, evidence and practice. In L. R. Prieto & S. A. Meyers (Eds.), The teaching assistant training handbook: How to prepare TAs for their responsibilities (pp. 103-129). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 35, 481-497.

Schrodt, P., Cawyer, C. S., & Sanders, R. (2003). An examination of academic mentoring behaviors and new faculty members' satisfaction with socialization and tenure and promotion processes. Communication Education, 52, 17-29.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Van Eck Peluchette, J., & Jeanquart, S. (2000). Professionals' use of different mentor sources at various career stages: Implications for career success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 549-564.

Copyright UW System

Kristin M. Vespia is an Assistant Professor of Human Development (Psychology and Women’s Studies) at the University of Wisconsin Green Bay. This article is based on a poster entitled “Learning to teach: A developmental approach to teaching and mentoring” presented at the 111th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August, 2003. The author wishes to thank Dr. Colleen Fitzpatrick for her valuable comments on the paper and Dr. Carolyn Zerbe Enns for her stellar mentorship and encouragement of the project. Correspondence concerning this article can be sent to 2420 Nicolet Drive, MAC C310, Green Bay, WI 54311. Electronic mail should be directed to vespiak@uwgb.edu.