Creating the Future of Faculty Development: Learning From the Past, Understanding the Future,
Mary Deane Sorcinelli, Ann E. Austin, Pamela L. Eddy, and Andrea L. Beach, Anker Publishing, 2006.
Reviewed by Judy Diane Grace, Arizona State University

As the preface (xi-xii) to this reflective study notes, the world of higher education, the roles and responsibilities of faculty, and therefore, faculty development, are been challenged as we move into the 21^st century.  Conflicting priorities and increased pressure for productivity have opened new avenues for reward and sustainability on our campuses. While an increasing number of our faculty are learning to support themselves and their work, the same faculty, or their colleagues, are being challenged by a changing student body, with even more diverse learning styles and needs, all this compounded by increasing accountability.

In describing the scope and structure of faculty development, the authors' study places faculty development as a function under academic affairs, curriculum committees, and provosts, with the majority of their respondents following a centralized unit model utilizing dedicated staff (37).  While the national level professional organizations provide some guidance--POD, NCSPOD, STLHE--(xiv), the faculty development function tends to take on a local flavor.  Many units have affiliation with or responsibility for full-time faculty as well as the other members of the teaching corps: graduate assistants, teaching assistants, post docs, and adjunct faculty. They also are often responsible for helping faculty think through the integration of technology (34) into the curriculum as well as linking teaching to student learning outcomes more effectively.

Based on the authors' years of work, both professional and scholarly, in faculty development, this book` effectively traces the development and evolution of faculty support services, from Harvard's establishment of the sabbatical in 1810 (1) into speculation of future tasks and responsibilities. Supplementing their own experiences are survey results reported by faculty development administrators, describing the organization and staffing, activities, and challenges of the center or units charged with faculty instructional support.

In thinking through what the future will bring, the authors take us through explanations of the Five Ages of Faculty Development. These parallel the evolution of our system of postsecondary education. For example, according to the authors, during the 1950's and early 1960's when the system was growing in impact and in importance, faculty development efforts were focused on developing competency as content experts; this was the Age of the Scholar.  When the system expanded to include the college-bound baby boomers in the late 60's and throughout the 1970's, student activism, according to the authors, increased the emphasis of faculty developers to the Age of the Teacher.  The 1990's—the Age of the Developer—was characterized by the overall deteriorating conditions of academic life. On the broad levels, institutions were influenced by the reform agendas, and faculty development followed. With increased emphasis on evaluation of teaching and faculty and decreased funding, some centers folded, lacking clear missions. The Age of the Learner followed, with its emphasis on faculty adjusting their teaching to address the needs of the new learners. The final age, the Age of the Network, emphasizes the dramatic change in our lives, personal and professional, brought by technology and in particular its applications to teaching and learning. This era, say the authors, poses the most exciting and dramatic challenges. (1-28)

The book does a thorough job of discussing the hard and soft issues of creating and sustaining faculty development efforts. The services offered, the funding, the reporting lines, and the politics are all considered within a realistic context. This part of the book is especially useful for those new to the administrative roles, either as a center director or an academic officer who is starting up a unit. The observations are made real with ample quotes from the field, generated from the survey behind the book.

While the contextual and historical background of faculty development is useful, the predictive nature of the discussion on the Age of the Network is most provocative and can be read as a stand alone for the current practitioner. The authors focus the discussion on the parameters: the changing professoriate, the changing student body, and the changing nature of teaching and learning (161).  These help focus the future as well as remind us that we are a product of our history with all the relevant penalties of that reality. For example, they note that the convergence of these parameters will differ for each institution and that no one model will meet the needs of even similar institutions, we are reminded of the necessity of reviewing what has worked, and what has failed, at our own institution.

Entering this age requires, according to the authors, attention to the followings agenda:

Promoting professional preparation and development
Informing practice with scholarship
Broadening the scope of faculty development
Linking individual and institutional needs
Remembering that context still matters
Redefining faculty diversity
Acknowledging that faculty development is everyone's work (157-176).

These are fleshed out with question probes that nicely lead the reader to discussions and reflections about values, needs, and priorities.

Overall, the book is informative, and in an opinion from the field, comforting.  The authors have provided us with the framework to examine our work and to plan for our futures, both at the campus level and as professionals who value enhanced student learning from enhanced teaching.