Evidence for Policy and Regulation

Abstract

Nurses often do not become faculty through deliberate intention; rather they enter the role because of circumstance. While they may be expert practitioners, they are often not prepared for faculty roles. Unlike traditional preparation for nursing practice, which requires clinical education, the role of nurse teacher often has no systematic preparation. The purpose of the Nurse Faculty Intern (NFI) Pilot Study was to investigate the role development of nurse educators and the mechanism by which graduate students gain competencies related to pedagogy through practical experience and a relationship with mentors. Results from the study revealed need for intentional role development for the NFI. Even though NFI’s had many years of nursing experience, they expressed the need for orientation to teaching pedagogy to better use their nursing knowledge when working with students. This article will present the findings and recommendations from the study.

Keywords

nursing education regulation of nursing practice state legislation

Introduction

Although the U.S. nursing shortage has drawn national attention, there is another looming shortage that will compound the problem many times over: a nationwide shortage of nursing faculty (American Association Colleges of Nursing [AACN], 2009; Arias, 2006; National League for Nursing [NLN], 2006). Like most states, North Dakota has been experiencing a shortage and an unequal distribution of nurses. Moreover, in the last few years, nursing education programs in North Dakota have begun to struggle to recruit and retain qualified faculty (Lang & Moulton, 2008). In the last 5 years, state policy makers and stakeholders increased efforts to satisfy the need for nurses through a “grow-your-own” process by expanding nursing education programs in community colleges and distance sites in rural communities. However, the shortage of qualified faculty threatens to derail the process. North Dakota nursing education programs have responded by using graduate students to teach in both didactic and clinical education. According to the AACN (1999), teaching is a recognized role within the discipline of nursing. The National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) recommends that nursing faculty teaching at all levels of nursing education program hold at least a minimum of a master’s degree in nursing (National Council of State Boards of Nursing [NCSBN], 2008). Nevertheless, there may be a tendency in times of shortage to place higher value on the role of clinical expertise than on the significance of the art of teaching (Bartels, 2007).

The North Dakota Board of Nursing (NDBON) required nursing faculty to hold a minimum of a master’s degree but has traditionally allowed university-based nursing schools with graduate programs to use their own graduate students as clinical instructors without limitation or penalty. However, there had been no evaluation of use of graduate students in a faculty role of this practice. In addition, many administrators of nursing programs without graduate programs saw this practice as an inequity. This drove discussions at the NDBON’s Nursing Education Committee in 2004-2005, which led to the conception of the Nurse Faculty Intern (NFI) Pilot Study. The purpose of the study was to investigate the role development of nurse educators and to expand general knowledge about the mechanisms through which nursing graduate students gain competencies related to teaching and learning through practical experience, while working closely with seasoned mentors in their employing nursing education programs.

This article will describe the conceptual framework that guided the study (Shanta, Kalanek, & Moulton, 2006), the study findings, and the ways in which the study was helpful for development of unqualified faculty members. For the purposes of this study, the term unqualified faculty includes individuals holding a faculty contract with less than a master’s degree in nursing as specified in the North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 54-03.2 Standards for Nursing Education Programs (North Dakota Board of Nursing, n.d.). The discussion of the findings will also reveal the need for a more systematic approach to a developmental program for unqualified faculty members. Finally, the article will convey recommendations that emerged from the process.

Scope of the Problem

According to the AACN, the 2010 annual survey of baccalaureate and graduate programs, more than 67,500 qualified applicants were not admitted, principally because of faculty shortages (AACN, 2011). Furthermore, this organization reports that this is over 10,000 more students being turned away than what was reported in 2008 (AACN, 2011). Similarly, the National League for Nursing (NLN) reports that 42% of the qualified applications to the organization’s constituent programs were rejected (NLN, n.d.). The North Dakota nursing faculty supply does not appear to provide an optimistic outlook for the future. Sixty percent of RN students and 28% of Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) students indicated they have no intention of pursuing a nursing faculty role sometime in the future (Lang & Moulton, 2009a). Current practicing nurses exhibited the same lack of interest, when only 23% of RNs thought that they might be interested in a faculty position (Lang & Moulton, 2009b). Compounding the looming problem is that nearly one third of the current faculty (average age 49) in all North Dakota nursing programs plan to retire by 2017 (Lang & Moulton, 2008). Economics may play a large part in the problem. As nurses advance their education, many choose advanced clinical roles because they command higher salaries than most nurse educators (AACN, 2010). In many instances, staff nurses have higher salaries than nurse educators (AACN, 2010). There is increased dependence on clinical instructors and part-time faculty that may or may not hold a master’s degree to cover the shortage of faculty (Aldebron & Allan, 2010; Riner & Billings, 1999).

Use of unqualified faculty to fill shortages may not be without risk. Preparation for clinical practice does not prepare one to be an educator (Aldebron & Allan, 2010; Sweitzer, 2003). Clinical expertise is essential to professional nursing practice, but clinical proficiency alone is not sufficient to convey nursing knowledge and practice to others in a meaningful way. Riner and Billings found that clinical instructors with less than a master’s degree in nursing reported the strongest need of all for development in faculty roles. Luhanga, Yonge, and Myrick (2008) warned that faculty who lack preparation in evaluation of student clinical competence could threaten public safety, when unsafe or incompetent students are passed through to graduation. Compounding this problem is the scarcity of nursing literature that addresses development of competence for clinical faculty (James, 2004). While an advanced degree alone does not ensure preparation for effective teaching, the scope of the NFI study related only to individuals who did not meet the NDBON regulatory requirements for a minimum of a master’s degree in nursing. The study was directed by NDBON to explore the practice of using graduate students without a master’s degree in faculty roles through a regulatory exception.

Nurse Faculty Intern Pilot Study Method

Shanta, Kalanek, Moulton, and Lang (2010) conducted the NFI Pilot Study in 2006-2009 with funding from the NDBON and the NCSBN. The study provided the opportunity to explore the faculty role development of unqualified individuals who did not meet the regulatory requirements for the nursing faculty positions. The structure of the study provided boundaries in which programs not only used unqualified individuals in the faculty role but also allowed flexibility for the nursing programs to determine the methods of orientation and role development of unqualified faculty. Nurse Faculty Interns (NFI) included faculty and graduate students, who were also employed at least part-time in a teaching and learning environment, while receiving guidance and feedback from a mentor and an academic consultant.

Data were collected related to faculty role development from the perception of the NFIs and their mentors based on the Nursing Faculty Development Survey tool developed by Riner and Billings (1999), which assesses the level of perceived developmental needs in four areas related to (a) clinical knowledge and expertise, (b) skills of pedagogy and curricular work, (c) use of technology and learning resources, and (d) faculty role development. In addition, focus group sessions solicited qualitative information from NFIs and mentors related to the experience of faculty development through this process. At the completion of involvement in the study, all participants were asked to express their individual satisfaction with the program. Following preliminary analysis of the findings, a panel of NFI participants was asked to react to the findings in an effort to validate the findings as capturing the essence of the experience. In addition, the panelists were asked to react to proposed recommendations.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework was developed based on an extensive literature review, which is detailed below within each component.

Nurse Faculty Intern

The central component of the conceptual framework (see Figure 1) represents individuals who are interested in entering the academic arena as a nurse faculty member. However, at the time of entry, the individual often is a skilled clinician but has not completed the process to receive appropriate credentials for education, specifically a graduate degree in nursing. Clinical expertise alone does not prepare one to be an educator (Sweitzer, 2003).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework

Graduate Education

The first interacting theme in the framework relates to the formal educational preparation of the NFI. This theme includes the focus of the NFI’s graduate nursing education, coupled with the academic consultant, who guides the NFIs in grasping the theoretical foundations of nursing education, rather than focusing on teaching as a set of tasks (Erkenz-Watts, Wetbay, & Lynd Balta, 2006). Graduate level education for nursing faculty is strategic to the individual educator’s understanding of the conceptual building blocks of higher education, including the skill of developing and maintaining cohesive curricula, as well as the ability to develop effective program evaluation plans (AACN, 1999; Aldebron & Allan, 2010; Bartels, 2007).

Riner & Billings (1999) found that faculty with no formal teacher education reported significantly higher level of needs for understanding educational processes, such as developing curricula, creating teaching learning situations, and using simulations to enhance critical thinking and problem solving. In the same study, the researchers also concluded that nurse faculty who reported their highest level of education as a bachelor’s in nursing or a master’s in another field indicated that they had significantly higher needs for faculty development than those with at least a master’s degree in nursing.

Mentor and Orientation

The second theme relates to the contributions made by the nursing program that employs the NFI. A mentor is assigned by the administrator of the program. Mentoring is an essential component to the transition and socialization of new faculty members into academia (Dunham-Taylor, Lynn, Moore, McDaniel, & Walker, 2008; National League for Nursing [NLN], 2006). The mentoring process is an ongoing relationship that may be formal or informal (Dunham-Taylor et al., 2008).

Orientation to the program is essential to provide the novice faculty with information related to institutional and role expectations. The orientation process may be facilitated by the mentor or by the program administrator (Hessler & Ritchie, 2006; Morin & Ashton, 2004).

Professional Socialization and Collegiality

Collegiality and professional acceptance is important to the transition to any new role (Secrest, Norwood, & Keatly, 2003; Smith & Zsohar, 2007). Enhanced growth in new faculty occurs when colleagues encourage critical inquiry and reflection on educational practices (Mahara & Jones, 2005). Thorp and Kalischuk (2003) presented a model for mentoring in nursing and education that is predicated on collegiality. This model depicts honest, open communication and mutuality between colleagues that is meant to reduce isolation, which is often associated with the faculty role and offers validation to each participant. It is crucial for the individual entering as a new member to feel a part of the greater faculty. Mutual benefits from welcoming novices into the faculty can support the model. For example, experienced nurse faculty may find that the perspective of the novice might add dimension to their current practice (Hessler & Ritchie, 2006).

Outcomes

The final theme depicts the outcomes of effective faculty role development, including acquisition of competence necessary for effective teaching and learning. This theme includes concepts of student satisfaction, nurse faculty intern satisfaction with career choice of nursing education, and outcome of retention of qualified faculty. In general, evaluation of innovation is necessary to begin building and adding to the repository of evidence from which effective interventions can be shared. Currently, many authors have noted the insufficiency of solid evidence related to outcomes of specific faculty developmental interventions (Bartels, 2007; Morin & Ashton, 2004; Ramalanjaona, 2003). Specifically, evaluation of the effectiveness of faculty development programs is important to determine further goals (Ramalanjaona, 2003). In addition, academia must understand the importance of effective faculty development and adequate support for novice educators because without these crucial programmatic characteristics, faculty may seek a new position or leave nursing education all together (Hessler & Ritchie, 2006). Finally, measuring the outcomes of this pilot study was important to assist the Board of Nursing to develop policy related to regulation of nursing education, while promoting evidence-based innovation that has a strong plan for assessing and evaluating the outcomes.

Findings

Nurse Faculty Intern

The study included 82 NFI participants (Table 1), with 58 completing both preparticipation and postparticipation developmental tools. Seventy-seven mentors completed pre- and postparticipation developmental tools. The focus groups were held in Years 1 and 2 with a total of 12 NFIs and 6 mentors. The NFI reactor group at the conclusion of the study was comprised of 6 current or former NFI participants. Demographic differences among the NFIs were identified in the study (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Demographics

	Nursing experience 1-5 Years (N = 32)	Nursing experience 6-10 Years (N = 18)	Nursing experience 11-15 Years (N = 18)	Nursing experience 16-20 Years (N = 7)	Nursing experience >20 Years (N = 7)
Gender
Male	16%	6%	6%	14%	0%
Female	84%	94%	94%	86%	100%
Educator or APN*
Educator	35%	56%	78%	86%	71%
APN	65%	44%	22%	14%	29%
Salary (average hourly rate, in US$)	$26.55 (4.0)	$26.47 (2.9)	$24.86 (4.1)	$27.47 (4.2)	$27.25 (3.5)
Program status
Completed	65%	72%	47%	71%	57%
Withdrew	32%	17%	47%	29%	14%
Discharged	3%	11%	7%	0%	29%
Employment status
Full-time	10%	35%	24%	29%	33%
Part-time	90%	65%	76%	71%	67%

Note. Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. APN = Advanced Practice Nursing.

Table 2.

Rurality by Demographics

	Urban (54)	Rural (22)	Total (76)
Gender
Female	89%	100%	92%
Male	11%	0%	8%
Program of study*
Educator	50%	86%	61%
APN	50%	14%	39%
Years of nursing experience	9.0	10.7	9.5
	(8.9)	(5.5)	(8.0)
Rate per hour, in US$	$26.45	$27.03	$26.69
	(4.8)	(4.2)	(4.5)

Note. Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. APN = Advanced Practice Nursing.

The study revealed positive findings and trends related to this experiential program. Specifically, based on the “Nursing Faculty Development Survey” tool (Riner & Billings, 1999), both the mentors and the NFIs identified a trend of decreasing developmental need in all four categories (Table 3). Furthermore, length of enrollment in the study contributed significantly in the NFIs’ development. Following participation, NFIs with more than two semesters had views that were significantly different from those with less that two semesters, regarding the need for additional preparation in teaching, evaluation, and curriculum work, F(1, 55) = 6.195, p = .016; in the use of learning resources, F(1, 56) = 4.972, p = .030, and faculty role development, F(1, 55) = 4.036, p = .049 (Table 4).

Table 3.

Overall Faculty Development Needs—Weighted

	Pretest (N = 72)		Posttest (N = 53)
	NFIs	Mentors	NFIs	Mentors
Changing health care environment	2.4	1.9**	2.1	1.7**
Changing health care environment	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.7)	(0.7)
Teaching, evaluation and curriculum work	3.1	3.2	2.5	2.7
Teaching, evaluation and curriculum work	(0.7)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.9)
Learning resources and information technologies	2.6	2.8	2.3	2.2
Learning resources and information technologies	(0.8)	(0.9)	(0.7)	(0.8)
Faculty role development	2.9	3.0	2.5	2.5
Faculty role development	(0.8)	(0.7)	(0.6)	(0.8)

Note: Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. NFI = Nurse Faculty Intern.

p < .01.

Table 4.

Faculty Development: Length of Participation

	NFIs for 1-2 Semesters (40)	NFIs for more than 2 Semesters (24)
Pretest—Changing health care environment	41.9	48.3
Pretest—Changing health care environment	(15.3)	(16.2)
Posttest—Changing health care environment	41.0	40.6
Posttest—Changing health care environment	(13.9)	(11.6)
Pretest—Teaching, evaluation, curriculum work	71.7	70.0
Pretest—Teaching, evaluation, curriculum work	(18.0)	(12.1)
Posttest—Teaching, evaluation, curriculum work*	64.4	54.8
Posttest—Teaching, evaluation, curriculum work*	(13.6)	(15.5)
Pretest—Learning resources and information technologies	30.7	30.4
Pretest—Learning resources and information technologies	(8.8)	(9.0)
Posttest—Learning resources and information technologies*	29.1	24.6
Posttest—Learning resources and information technologies*	(7.5)	(7.5)
Pretest—Faculty role development	66.3	65.6
Pretest—Faculty role development	(17.3)	(17.3)
Posttest—Faculty role development*	64.3	56.6
Posttest—Faculty role development*	(14.2)	(14.6)

Note: Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. NFI = Nurse Faculty Intern.

p < .05.

However, despite the positive outcomes identified in this study, gaps were also identified. Some of the discrepancies identified by the NFI Pilot Study may have been associated with the different roles that the participants were hired to fill. For example, 64% of the participants were functioning in a GTA role, while the other 36% were hired into faculty positions and held faculty contracts. More than one half of the participants in GTA positions were students in advanced practice nursing programs (Table 5).

Table 5.

Teaching Position by Demographics

	Faculty (N = 27)	Graduate teaching assistants (N = 49)	Total (76)
Gender
Male	0%	12%	8%
Female	100%	88%	92%
Educator or APN
Educator	81%	48%	60%
APN	19%	52%	40%
Nursing experience
Years	11.4	8.8	9.7
	(5.41)	(8.89)	(7.90)
Salary
Rate per hour, in US$	$27.05	$25.65	$26.25
	(4.3)	(3.3)	(3.7)

Note. Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. APN = Advanced Practice Nursing.

This difference was highlighted in the focus groups. The following quote captures this perspective:

I think that longevity is not necessarily expected of the interns that go through our university, so some of that depth . . . if stuff comes up they go to their mentor, the mentor goes to their supervisor and you deal with it and unless something comes up you just don’t go into those issues because you don’t need to. They might only be around for a semester or two and then they move on. (NFI focus group participant)

Graduate Education

The focus groups were tasked with describing how education contributes to faculty development. The importance of faculty holding a graduate degree was discussed as essential and the groups concluded that undergraduate education did not prepare them for academic teaching; rather, graduate study provided a broader base for understanding nursing education. NFIs indicated that during their undergraduate programs there was little formal coursework on teaching (some did have leadership classes). However, they did observe a wide range of role models (negative to positive) and have used some of the teaching styles and techniques from their undergraduate instructors in their own teaching style. These role models were also influential in helping to introduce the idea of a faculty position while they were in their undergraduate programs. NFIs indicated that coursework on teaching methodologies and giving presentations, perhaps within a leadership course, would be a good addition to the undergraduate curriculum as a mechanism not necessarily as preparation of nursing faculty but for nurses who teach patients and nursing students in the clinical setting.

The consensus of the focus groups was that the graduate-level education was necessary for development of specific competencies necessary for a faculty role. Specifically, NFIs who were enrolled in an education specialty indicated that graduate coursework on learning styles and curriculum design were helpful, especially when working with students with different learning styles.

Mentors also discussed the value of advancing one’s education in developing greater competence as a nurse educator. One mentor focus group participant expressed how the work with the NFI made her consider her own academic progression:

. . . it just made me realize a master’s just doesn’t cut it anymore, you know they’re coming in and they are going for their higher education and I feel that pressure is that a master’s ten years ago was really something and now it’s like you need to go on beyond.

Mentors

Mentors have been strongly identified by the literature as essential to faculty development (Anibas, Hanson Brenner, Zorn, 2009; Brightman, 2006; Dunham-Taylor et al., 2008; Gaza, 2009; Hopkins & Gigoriu, 2005; Lewallen, Crane, Letvak, Jones, & Hu, 2003; NLN, 2006; Sawatzky & Enns, 2009; Siler & Kleiner, 2001; Suplee & Gardner, 2009; Thorpe & Kalischuk, 2003; West, Borden, Bermudez, & Hanson-Zalot, 2009). This essential component was supported by the findings of Nurse Faculty Intern Pilot Study (Shanta et al. 2010). Although not significant, the mean level of NFI preference for a mentor relationship as a developmental asset increased following participation in this study (3.75-3.90) and was the preferred method of faculty development at the end of their participation. On the other hand, while most NFI participants described their mentors as helpful and supportive, there were situations in which the relationship was described as less than helpful to nonexistent. Siler and Kliener (2001) described a similar variability in mentor relationships in their qualitative study of the expectations of novice faculty entering academia. Specifically, this study used a phenomenological method to gain understanding of the experience of new faculty members. The participants identified difficulty getting adequate direction and support as they were learning the full context of their new roles. In the current study, the NFIs and mentors addressed this issue with a recommendation for a formalized preparation for role as mentor, rather than just functioning in the role of preceptor or supervisor (Smith & Zsohar, 2007). One NFI participant stated, “My mentor was absolutely confused as to what her role was and really did try to give me to someone else.” A mentor focus group participant agreed and made the following observations,

I think that some guidance could be very useful as to what the expectations are for my role as a mentor . . . I found even though I am an experienced faculty member it was still very helpful to have the opportunity to make it more formal.

Participants in the focus groups and the reactor panel concluded that a nursing faculty development plan include preparation of the mentors for this important function, prior to being matched with a novice and unqualified faculty member.

Both NFI participants and mentors in the NFI Pilot Study found that lack of availability for meetings decreased the learning from and satisfaction of the relationship. One of the mentors offered the following valuable suggestion:

I think what might be helpful would be to have some clear expectations, suggest time for mentors to get together and talk about what the expectations are and what goals we have and how we can reach those goals.

These findings aligned the implications presented by Hopkins & Grigoriu (2005) and the model of Collegial Mentoring presented by Thorpe & Kalischuk (2003), who found that although an informal mentoring structure might be effective, it is only through consistency that a trusting and caring relationship developed between mentor and mentee. In addition to individual commitment for the mentoring process, consistency and regularity of mentoring meetings demands solid institutional support. In this study, both NFIs and mentors discussed overwhelming workload that presented a barrier to effective mentor assisted developmental process. One mentor summed up these thoughts,

. . . You know we kind of scramble just to stay afloat sometimes is what it feels like. And that kind of isolates you . . . because you just work, work, work and you keep your head down and even some of the rest of the departments in the building sometimes we don’t have the interactions that we used to . . .

Orientation

Extensive orientation to institutional policies and culture is essential for new faculty members to navigate effectively (Danna, Schaubhut, & Jones, 2010; Suplee & Gardner, 2009). The employing institutions in this study were required to present an orientation plan for each NFI participant. The content most commonly reported by program administrators included (a) curriculum orientation, (b) institution policies and procedures, and (c) teaching/learning (student evaluations and clinical teaching). Orientation to the curriculum was only mentioned one time. Three institutions in Year 1 analysis reported no orientation. By Year 2, all administrators described an orientation plan.

The NFI focus groups in our study discussed the lack of a quality orientation program to help the new faculty members understand the nuances of the particular institution, including the informal power structure. The mentors expressed concern about the level of orientation. One mentor described the current process as orientation by fire. The reaction panel agreed that orientation was variable, but most of the panelists noted that they received little or any orientation prior to being expected to teach students in one area or another. In addition, the panel emphasized that a comprehensive orientation is an essential component. In particular the panel expressed that programmatic policy and organizational structure is important for the novice faculty to understand. The panelists concurred that this should be required for all unqualified and new faculty members.

Collegiality and Socialization

The focus groups provided insight into this component of the study. The mentor focus groups discussed collegiality within their department and with their NFIs.

One Mentor described the mutual development achieved by all interacting with the novice faculty member: “. . . the students enjoy a great deal of enthusiasm that the nurse faculty interns have brought.”

The mentor groups indicated that in some cases there was confusion among faculty as several worked with the NFIs in different settings or classes, which sometimes resulted in “turf wars.” One mentor focus group participant described issues within the faculty structure.

There’s a great deal of collegiality, where I work, but there’s also a great deal of ownership of content and of tasks that can really drive a wedge especially if this program is bringing in a mentor . . . I couldn’t step on the lab coordinator’s toes when I wanted to show her how to do something in lab.

The NFI focus groups indicated that when they were included in faculty activities such as meetings, they felt more valued. However, when they were not informed about culture of the institution and program they felt more insecure. The reaction panel validated these feelings and added the observation that distance learning requiring distribution of faculty increased the feelings of isolation making face-to-face contact with the mentor even more important.

Development of Specific Skills of Pedagogy

The competencies that are unique to the educator role have been highlighted in literature related to faculty role development. Components identified within the literature review for the Nurse Faculty Intern Pilot study included (a) Teaching and learning skills (Brightman, 2006; Curl, Smith, Chisholm, Hamilton, McGee, 2007; Siler & Klieiner,2001); (b) Clinical teaching (Anibas et al., 2009; Krautscheid, Kaakinen, & Warner,2008; West et al., 2009); (c) Technology (Suplee & Gardner, 2009; West et al., 2009); and (d) Evaluation (Anibas et al., 2009; Suplee & Gardner, 2009; West et al., 2009).

Beyond an orientation program that helps the individuals understand organizational policies and expectations, there is a specific body of knowledge, skills, and abilities that are inherent in the role of faculty. Those novice teachers want to improve their ability as educators (Siler & Keiner, 2001). The NFIs in this study were no different and emphasized their desire to be good teachers and their need to prepare for the specific faculty role. One NFI focus group participant emphasized the importance of this area of skills, “Teaching is an area of expertise all on its own, but I think it doesn’t really matter how expert you are in your area if you don’t know how to get it across to somebody else.” The NFI participants indicated the highest level of developmental needs in the pedagogy section entitled “Teaching, Evaluation, and Curriculum Work” in the pretest, and although it was decreased in the posttest, the level of need was still higher than two of the other sections and was equal to the “Faculty Role Development” section in the posttest (Table 3). When the items within this category were analyzed individually, the experience contributed to strongly significantly less needs in 20 of the 24 items (Table 6).

Table 6.

Faculty Development for Teaching, Evaluation, and Curriculum Work, Pretests to Posttests

	NFIs (N = 58)		Mentors (N = 59)
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Using a variety of teaching strategies	2.97	2.56*	3.05	2.60**
	(1.05)	(0.99)	(0.91)	(0.91)
Designing curricula	3.54	3.10**	3.75	3.31*
	(1.15)	(1.01)	(0.98)	(1.10)
Basing teaching on teaching-learning theories	3.19	2.66**	3.44	2.71**
	(0.94)	(0.99)	(0.79)	(1.05)
Assessing student learning styles	2.78	2.47*	3.30	2.65**
	(0.93)	(0.95)	(0.93)	(1.07)
Assigning grades	2.88	2.34**	2.95	2.53**
	(1.07)	(0.96)	(1.06)	(1.16)
Writing mission and philosophy statements	3.17	2.90	3.47	3.34
	(1.16)	(1.09)	(1.20)	(1.10)
Writing program, level and course objectives etc.	3.28	2.78**	3.43	3.34
	(1.07)	(1.09)	(1.09)	(1.12)
Developing educational mobility programs	3.54	3.28	3.64	3.41
	(1.13)	(1.03)	(1.36)	(1.11)
Participating in preparing reports	3.19	2.83*	3.16	2.72**
	(1.06)	(1.00)	(1.06)	(1.21)
Assessing learning outcomes	3.07	2.47**	3.09	2.60**
	(0.87)	(0.82)	(1.01)	(1.11)
Writing NCLEX style test items	3.51	3.05*	3.63	3.23*
	(1.22)	(1.11)	(1.19)	(1.04)
Interpreting test item analysis	3.40	2.71**	3.53	3.11*
	(1.18)	(1.21)	(1.21)	(1.08)
Evaluating student writing	2.81	2.27**	2.93	2.41**
	(0.84)	(0.85)	(1.18)	(1.14)
Choosing classroom learning experiences	2.80	2.20**	3.19	2.55**
	(0.92)	(0.78)	(1.08)	(1.17)
Planning clinical experiences	2.61	1.97**	2.66	2.15**
	(1.10)	(0.79)	(1.20)	(1.11)
Evaluating clinical performance	2.61	1.97**	2.69	2.08**
	(1.08)	(0.98)	(1.32)	(1.26)
Teaching critical thinking	2.86	2.27**	2.83	2.25**
	(1.20)	(1.06)	(1.15)	(1.04)
Evaluating program outcomes	2.95	2.46**	3.29	2.71**
	(0.99)	(0.90)	(1.14)	(1.09)
Using collaborative learning strategies	2.85	2.39**	3.09	2.47**
	(0.94)	(0.91)	(1.11)	(1.10)
Measuring teaching effectiveness	2.93	2.41**	3.17	2.59**
	(0.93)	(0.97)	(0.97)	(1.15)
Establishing an effective teaching-learning environment	2.66	2.17**	2.85	2.25**
	(0.99)	(0.87)	(1.13)	(1.09)
Using ethical-legal principals as a faculty	2.66	2.20**	2.27	2.03
	(1.14)	(0.89)	(1.06)	(1.08)
Developing community-based teaching & learning experience	2.98	2.41**	3.03	2.48**
	(0.99)	(0.77)	(0.99)	(1.01)
Using portfolios to teach and evaluate	3.25	2.83**	3.24	2.84*
	(1.04)	(0.95)	(1.05)	(1.04)

Note. Standard deviations when available are in parentheses. NFI = Nurse Faculty Intern.

p < .05. **p < .01.

In essence, the participants in this study illustrated their view of the importance of developing into the role of teacher in an academic environment through education and other means. An NFI focus group participant described how observation of others teaching styles influenced her in her role development:

But basically when it all comes down to it, it’s because they really know how to teach. I came away with so much more information and I think it is really important to try to pass that information on to other graduate students that we don’t know how to get it across, it doesn’t matter how hard we pound into their heads.

On the other hand, the following NFI participant explained the consequences of observing ineffective educators:

. . . would make me a good teacher, which is why I chose the education track because I wanted to learn how to be a good teacher . . . I think frustration with poor teachers makes you not want to be that person.

The reaction panel agreed that any developmental program should include specific content and activities to enhance competence in teaching and learning. The panelists ranked the top skills from the Riner and Billings “Nursing Faculty Development Survey” related to teaching and pedagogy improved by the experience. The group overwhelmingly embraced the ability to teach critical thinking as the top item, and establishing an effective teaching-learning environment as second, followed by planning clinical experiences.

Policy Recommendations Related to Findings

Although the preparation of faculty with graduate level education has been identified as essential for effective teaching and learning in this study and in professional literature (AACN, 1999; Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day, 2010; NLN, 2006), the trend of employing academically unqualified individuals as nursing faculty is not likely to decline in this period of faculty shortage. Furthermore, accentuating the need for effective transition into a new role is critical to the success of a faculty development program for individuals that are clinical experts (Anderson, 2009; Hessler & Ritchie, 2006; Suplee & Gardner, 2009).

The findings of the Nurse Faculty Intern Pilot Study (Shanta et al., 2010) indicated that there was not a consistent manner in which the nursing education programs oriented or developed the NFIs, which led to dissatisfaction and feelings of insecurity. One NFI focus group participant stated, “It is a lack of educating the educators.”

The remainder of this article will provide recommendations for regulation and policy intended to improve and formalize the process by which unqualified faculty members are supported and developed into a faculty role. These recommendations are based on findings from this study with an underpinning from current literature described in the conceptual framework.

Nursing education programs should provide a developmental program approved by the Board of Nursing for all unqualified faculty (regardless of position title). While the program should not replicate similar graduate program content, many of those functioning in a faculty role may be enrolled in graduate programs that are not focused on nursing education. The developmental program outlines the components of the orientation program. Forty percent of the participants in this study were enrolled in graduate programs to prepare them for advanced practice versus nurse educator roles. If unqualified individuals are used to extend faculty resources or to meet student needs in a time of faculty shortage, strategies to develop teaching-related skills in these novice faculty members are key to facilitating effective nursing education (Curl et al., 2007).

Recommendation 1: A faculty developmental program approved by the board of nursing should continue for the duration of employment of an unqualified faculty member.

The findings of this study and the literature support the need for a developmental process for transitioning clinical nurses into a faculty role. To address the inconsistencies within the process of using unqualified faculty members, nursing education regulations must identify the core concepts that are crucial in a faculty development program and require regulatory approval of such programs.

Time is essential for learning and applying new skills needed in any new practice. Learning skills for pedagogy is a developmental process that can be built during the program (Sweitzer, 2003). The time necessary for role transition and development was also a component identified by the study. It is essential that the program that uses unqualified individuals invest resources to accommodate transition and development of these new faculty members. As previously reported, the NFI participants who remained enrolled in the study for more than two academic semesters reported significantly less need than those with less time participating in the experience. This recommendation also aligns with transitional theory related to a necessary amount of time to master a new skill or set of skills (Meleis, Sawyer, Im, Messias, & Schumacher, 2000).

Recommendation 2: All unqualified individuals employed as faculty should be currently and actively engaged/enrolled in a graduate nursing program.

The complexity of the environment in which nurses practice has increased the need for advanced education in all areas of practice and the role of faculty nursing education is no exception (Aldebron & Allen, 2010; Tri-Council for Nursing, 2010). Clinical competency is essential for teaching the practice of nursing, but a focus on role development and using nursing science is equally important focus for nursing educators (NLN, 2002). Graduate-level education is fundamental for acquiring this level of knowledge and skills. The results of the NFI Pilot study are consistent with experts’ findings that graduate education is the foundation for the development of competencies necessary for faculty to be effective in the role of teacher and coach for students. In addition, this advanced education is critical for developing curricula that is responsive to the demands of today’s health care environment (Benner et al., 2010).

Recommendation 3: Each unqualified faculty member should be assigned to a mentor who is on-site and available to assist the individual in the development of required competencies for the role of faculty member.

Each mentor is prepared for the role that includes regular meetings with the mentee.

The employing program supports this mentorship relationship through time allowance and other necessary resources.

Mentors provide feedback and support through the psychological stress involved with the role transition of inexperienced faculty members (Anderson, 2009). Mentors are most effective when they are assigned with matching areas of teaching or interest (Suplee & Gardner, 2009). Brightman (2006) recommended regular mentor–mentee meetings to facilitate the feedback loop for improved teaching ability and ultimately greater student learning. Likewise, the mentees in the current study and the NFI reaction panel confirmed the necessity of regular face-to-face meetings to reach mutual goals (Shanta et al., 2010). In addition, considering the rural nature of this state, as well as the various distance education programs, the recommendation was put forth that on-site mentors would better facilitate a positive outcome of the program.

Additionally, most NFI participants in this study described their mentors as beneficial. Conversely, there were instances in which participants described mentors as lacking understanding of the responsibilities required for this role. When mentoring was effective, the benefits described were mutual to both the NFI and the mentor. NLN (2006) emphasizes the importance of mentoring by suggesting the concept be included in nursing curricula and through faculty development programs. From this perspective, a recommendation evolved that a nursing faculty development plan include preparation of mentors for this important function, prior to being matched with a novice and unqualified faculty member.

The literature and the findings from this study have demonstrated the importance of mentors’ guidance and support of new faculty members. Equally important to supporting this process is institutional support (Hopkins & Grigoriu, 2005; Suplee & Gardner, 2009), in which workload of both participants in this relationship is taken into account.

Recommendation 4: The faculty development program includes an extensive orientation program that includes all of the following:

Institutional policies (faculty & student)

Departmental policies (faculty & student)

Organizational structure

Academic culture

Curriculum

Content related to teaching and learning, which includes basic curricular concepts, teaching strategies (didactic & clinical), use of instructional technology including using simulation, and evaluation of student learning (cognitive, psychomotor, & affective domains).

Extensive orientation to institutional policies and culture is essential for new faculty members to navigate effectively (Danna et al., 2010; Suplee & Gardner, 2009). Orientation provides inside information about the culture and politics of the program. The NFIs and reaction panel described insufficient orientation to programs and left them feeling insecure and left out. The participants in our study described a strong desire to be a good teacher, but it takes more than orientation, gaining skills to be a good teacher. Benner et al. (2010) recommended that nursing educators modify pedagogy used to teach nursing practice to students through integrated clinical and didactic content, with a contextual framework that will facilitate clinical reasoning.

Recommendation 5: The developmental program should design a systematic evaluation plan to assess the effectiveness of the program.

Ramalanjaona (2003) suggested that program evaluation models should include evaluation of the outcomes of the program and of student learning. The literature provides evidence that institutional support is essential (Hopkins & Grigoriu, 2005; Suplee & Gardner, 2009). In this study, it was found that lack of institutional support created a barrier for the developmental process. The resources necessary for the program will be a key issue that will be weighed by institutions in relationship to implementation. Program evaluation is crucial for documenting the benefit of the program (Ramalanjaona, 2003).

Limitations and Conclusion

This article has presented the findings of a study related to developmental needs of unqualified individuals functioning in faculty roles. The study was limited by the small number of participants who completed both pre- and postdata collection. At the completion of data collection, many of the participants were still completing their graduate program. Large variance occurred in the number of semesters the participants were employed as faculty. Further research could include replicating the study with a larger sample of subjects This area of research would also benefit from a randomized control design to test the effectiveness of an interventional faculty developmental program. The results of this pilot study provides a model by which regulatory bodies can assist nursing education programs to address the faculty shortage through innovation, while maintaining quality education programs.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the ND Board of Nursing and the National Council State Boards of Nursing.

References

Aldebron

Allan

J. D.

(2010). Resisting the downward pressure on nursing faculty qualifications. Journal of Nursing Regulation, 1(1), 21-25.

American Association Colleges of Nursing. (1999). Defining scholarship for the discipline of nursing. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/positions/scholar.htm

American Association Colleges of Nursing. (2009). Nursing shortage. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Media/FactSheets/NursingShortage.htm

American Association Colleges of Nursing. (2010). Shortage of faculty and resource constraints hinder growth in U.S. nursing schools according to latest AACN data. Retrieved from http://apps.aacn.nche.edu/Media/NewsReleases/2010/facshortage.html

American Association Colleges of Nursing. (2011). Enrollment surge in baccalaureate, master’s and doctoral nursing programs even though 67,000 qualified applications were turned away in 2010. Retrieved from http://apps.aacn.nche.edu/Media/NewsReleases/2011/enrollsurge.html

Anderson

J. K.

(2009). The work-role transition of expert clinician to academic educator. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 203-209.

Anibas

Hanson Brenner

Zorn

C. R.

(2009). Experiences described by novice teaching academic staff in baccalaureate nursing education: A focus on mentoring. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 25, 211-217.

Arias

D. C.

(2006). Faculty shortage hurting nation’s nursing work force. Nation’s Health, 36(2). Retrieved from http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/523847_print

Bartels

J. E.

(2007). Preparing nursing faculty for baccalaureate-level and graduate-level nursing programs: Role preparation for the academy. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 154-158.

10.

Benner

Sutphen

Leonard

Day

(2010). Educating nurses: A call for radical transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Brightman

H. J.

(2006). Mentoring faculty to improve teaching and student learning. Issues in Accounting Education, 21(2), 127-147.

12.

Curl

E. D.

Smith

Chisholm

Hamilton

McGee

L. A.

(2007). Multidimensional approaches to extending nurse faculty resources without testing faculty’s patience. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 193-195.

13.

Danna

Schaubhut

R. M.

Jones

J. R.

(2010). From practice to education: Perspectives from three nurse leaders. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 41(2), 83-88.

14.

Dunham-Taylor

Lynn

C. W.

Moore

McDaniel

Walker

J. K.

(2008). What goes around: Improving faculty retention through more effective mentoring. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 24, 337-346.

15.

Gaza

E. A.

(2009). The experience of being a full-time nursing faculty member in a baccalaureate nursing education program. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25, 218-226.

16.

Hessler

Ritchie

(2006). Recruitment and retention of novice faculty. Journal of Nursing Education, 45, 150-155.

17.

Hopkins

R. A.

Grigoriu

(2005). Mentoring community college faculty and staff: Balancing contradictions of informal program components and formal program structure. Community College Review, 32(4), 40-61.

18.

James

K. M. G.

(2004). Bridging the gap: Creating faculty development opportunities in a large medical center. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 35(1), 24-29.

19.

Lang

Moulton

(2008). North Dakota nursing faculty survey results. Grand Forks, ND: Center for Rural Health, School of Medicine and Health Sciences University of North Dakota. Retrieved from http://ruralhealth.und.edu/projects/nursing/pdf/faculty_survey_results0708.pdf

20.

Lang

Moulton

(2009a). North Dakota nursing needs study licensed nurse survey results. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Center for Rural Health.

21.

Lang

Moulton

(2009b). North Dakota nursing needs study: Student survey results. Grand Forks, ND: University of North Dakota Center for Rural Health.

22.

Lewallen

L. P.

Crane

P. B.

Letvak

Jones

(2003). An innovative strategy to enhance new faculty success. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24, 257-262.

23.

Luhanga

Yonge

O. J.

Myrick

(2008). Failure to assign failing grades: Issues with grading the unsafe student. International Journal of Nursing Education, 5(1), 1-25.

24.

Mahara

M. S.

Jones

J. A.

(2005) Participatory inquiry with a colleague: An innovative faculty development process. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(3), 124-131.

25.

Meleis

A. I.

Sawyer

L. M.

E. O.

Messias

D. K.

Schumacher

(2000). Experiencing transitions: An emerging middle-range theory. Advanced Nursing Science. 23(1), 12-28.

26.

Morin

K. H.

Ashton

K. C.

(2004). Research on faculty orientation programs: Guidelines and directions for nurse educators. Journal of Professional Nursing, 20, 239-250.

27.

National Council of State Boards of Nursing. (2008). Nursing faculty qualifications and roles. Retrieved from https://www.ncsbn.org/Final_08_Faculty_Qual_Report.pdf

28.

National League for Nursing. (n.d.). Executive summary: Findings from the annual survey of schools of nursing. Academic year 2009-2010. Retrieved from http://www.nln.org/researchgrants/slides/exec_summary_0910.pdf

29.

National League for Nursing Board of Governors. (2006, March 1). Position statement: Mentoring of nurse faculty. New York, NY: Author

30.

North Dakota Board of Nursing. (n.d.). Article 54-03.2 Standards for nursing education. Retrieved from http://www.legis.nd.gov/information/acdata/html/54-03.2.html

31.

Ramalanjaona

(2003). Faculty development: How to evaluate the effectiveness of a faculty development program in emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine, 10, 891-895.

32.

Riner

M. E.

Billings

D. M.

(1999). Faculty development for teaching in a changing health environment: A statewide needs assessment. Journal of Nursing Education, 38, 427-430.

33.

Sawatzky

J. V.

Ennis

C. L.

(2009). A mentoring needs assessment: Validating mentorship in nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25, 145-150.

34.

Secrest

J. A.

Norwood

B. R.

Keatley

V. M.

(2003). “I was actually a nurse”: The meaning of professionalism for baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(2), 77-91.

35.

Shanta

Kalanek

Moulton

(2006). Nurse faculty internship. North Dakota Board of Nursing. Retrieved from http://www.ndbon.org/education/academic/Nrs%20Faculty%20Intern.asp

36.

Shanta

Kalanek

Moulton

Lang

(2010). The Nurse Faculty Intern Study Final Report to NCSBN February 2010. Chicago, IL: National Council State Boards of Nursing.

37.

Siler

B. B.

Kleiner

(2001). Novice faculty: Encountering expectations in Academia. Journal of Nursing Education, 40, 397-314.

38.

Smith

J. A.

Zsohar

(2007). Essentials of neophyte mentorship in relation to the faculty shortage. Journal of Nursing Education, 46, 184-187.

39.

Suplee

P. D.

Gardner

(2009). Fostering a smooth transition to the faculty role. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40, 514-521.

40.

Sweitzer

H. F.

(2003). Getting off to a good start: Faculty development in professional programs. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34, 263-274.

41.

Thorpe

Kalischuk

R. G.

(2003). A collegial mentoring model for nurse educators. Nursing Forum, 38(1), 5-14.

42.

Tri-Council for Nursing. (2010). Tri-council for nursing issues new consensus policy statement on educational advancement of registered nurses. Retrieved from http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Education/pdf/TricouncilEdStatement.pdf

43.

West

M. M.

Borden

Bermudez

Hanson-Zalot

(2009). Enhancing the clinical adjunct role to benefit students. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 40, 305-311.