Light, Greg, Susanna Calkins, Melissa Luna, &

Light, Greg, Susanna Calkins, Melissa Luna, & Denise Drane. (2009). Assessing the impact of a year-long faculty development program on faculty approaches to teaching. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20 (2): 168-181.

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe / ISSN 1812-9129 What was the overall mixed methods strategy or design? The 2009 article "Assessing the impact of a year-long faculty development program on faculty approaches to teaching" by Greg Light, Susanna Calkins, Melissa Luna, and Denise Drane uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the faculty development program (FDP) under study through a longitudinal approach.

Why was this type of strategy or design selected for this study? This strategy was used to provide objective, quantitative evidence of the program under study yet to also accumulate data on the subjective experiences of study participants. What was the problem statement? The problem statement of the longitudinal study was the question of the efficacy of FDPs, the need for such programs, and also the extent of the change they fostered in the classroom.

What was the purpose of the study? The stated purpose of the study was to determine if faculty development programs (FDP) substantially enhance the quality of teaching at a university level. Which research questions were addressed with quantitative methods and which with qualitative methods (if stated)? Both questions of the efficacy of FDPs and extent of impact were addressed by qualitative and quantitative approaches. The qualitative approaches used to gather evidence for the study included assessing critical reports of the teachers' performances and using post-program interviews.

This was combined with an assessment of the results of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) in a quantitative fashion (Light et al. 2006: 170). What was the sample and sampling technique used for both the quantitative and qualitative methods? There was an experimental and control group: 52 junior faculty members from a variety of disciplines formed the experimental group and 29 junior faculty members formed the control group. The control group was drawn from the same pool of faculty, from a similar range of disciplines as the program participants (Light et al. 2006: 170-171).

What data collection and analytic techniques were employed? Describe these in detail. What quantitative data collection techniques were used? What qualitative data collection techniques were used? Data collection involved using quantitative methods, comparing the scores on the ATI between the experimental and control groups. All participants completed the ATI at the beginning and end of the program. All faculty members who completed FDP also submitted a critical project report of actual teaching changes implemented (or planned) at the end of program, which was assessed in a qualitative manner.

The final project for all experimental group participants involved the redesign of an existing course, or the design of a new course or of a significant part of a new course that the participant taught during the year of the program or would be teaching during the next academic year. Annually, participants submitted evidence of student-centered teaching practice and changes in teaching practices they had observed in themselves. During the third and fourth years, participants were subjected to qualitatively-assessed interviews during which they would report their experiences (Light et al. 2006: 171).

Did the way in which the data were collected correspond with the mixed method strategy used (for example, were the data in fact collected sequentially or concurrently)? How do you know this? How were quantitative data analyzed? How were qualitative data analyzed? Data on the scores of all participants was collected via the ATI and was used to support the subjective impressions of the interviews -- both were analyzed independently, however.

How were the quantitative and qualitative data analyses used to explain the findings? According to the interviews and qualitative reviews of the study, teachers who were graduates of the program reported that they did embark upon more student-centered and change-related initiatives, and showed higher quantitative scores upon the assessment than the control group. Scores on the ATI suggested a higher number of conceptual change/student focused initiatives. Overall, the findings of the researchers suggested that FDPs are valuable in enhancing responsiveness to student needs (Light et al. 2006: 178).

What ethical issues might exist with this study? Why? Ethically, participation was voluntary, although there are some problematic aspects to the study. First of all, it could be argued that the professors who received additional support might.