<i>Planning for Effective Faculty Development: Using Adult Learning Strategies</i> by Patricia A. Lawler & Kathleen P. King
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary audience for this text, the authors argue, are "faculty development practitioners and other professional adult educators who are responsible for developing and presenting faculty development initiatives" (p.x).They go on to suggest that the book "can also serve as a text for graduate education courses in faculty, staff, or professional development" (p.xi).Although inexperienced faculty developers in particular may indeed find the text useful, I am less certain that it makes a good text for a graduate course.My reasons become clear below.On p. 91 the authors summarize clearly what they believe is their greatest contribution: "The goal of this book is to enhance the effectiveness of faculty development through thoughtful and systematic planning based on the theories of adult learning."Although this is indeed a valuable idea, it is perhaps not quite as innovative as the authors suggest.As early as 1983 Geis and Smith explored what it might mean for the practice of faculty development "if Professors are Adult Learners," and over the past few decades many scholars have built on this point (Brookfield, 1995;Cranton, 1994Cranton, , 1996;;Saroyan & Amundsen, 1997).The six adult learning principles that according to the authors should inform faculty development practice are: being aware of and drawing on faculty's experiences; creating a climate of respect; focusing on the application of learning; using collaborative inquiry; encouraging active participation; and empowering the faculty.In Chapter 2 they introduce a model called the "Adult learning model for faculty development," which brings together the two ideas of adult learning and program planning.The model consists of four stages: a preplanning stage, a planning stage, a delivery stage, and a follow-up stage.Some adult learning principles, the authors argue, apply in each stage, and all six apply in the delivery stage.Several good points are made as these four stages are described in greater detail in the chapters that follow.I found Chapter 2 the strongest chapter in the book and would recommend it highly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".